Good narrative writing often opens with a small but revealing story. Sometimes called a “narrative vignette,” these openings typically try to capture a decisive and dramatic moment in the story as way to engage and focus readers. Then narrative historians step back, and provide context and analysis to transform storytelling into a powerful platform for historical thinking. An outline for a good narrative history paper might look like this (with specific connections to the constitutional narrative in italics):
I. Introduction (2-3 pages)
- Narrative vignette
- Thesis statement paragraph (Here is where you must make sure to connect your smaller narrative to larger narrative of constitutional change)
II. Background (5-7 pages)
- Useful context that helps set the stage for the full narrative (Here is where you can rely most heavily on secondary and even reference sources; your most important objective in this section is to be concise)
III. Full narrative (5-7 pages)
- Detailed chronological account that uses both primary & secondary sources (Here is where you really want to demonstrate the ability to seamlessly integrate a wide variety of sources into an engaging story)
IV. Analysis (5-7 pages)
- Thoughtful consideration of significance and consequences (Here is where you are most likely to engage in deeper historiographical analysis, situating your narrative in a larger scholarly debate about this particular episode of constitutional change)
V. Conclusion (2-3 pages)
- Explanation of thesis applied to full details of narrative (Make sure to fully explain the significance of this episode in the context of American constitutional history)
- Final narrative details to help return story to opening moment
There are many, many other ways, however, to organize a historical narrative. Consider the wisdom of this piece, for example, by historian Adam Arenson, who claims that papers should resemble a CSI episode. The point is to use historical thinking to engage an audience in a significant story.