=Bill Adams=: I never think of the reader--not even when the story is in
print. If I do, I think it is a remarkably odd world to contain such
queer ducks.
=Samuel Hopkins Adams=: Damn the readers. I'm too busy with the
immediate people of my imagination to worry about the dim and distant
thousands.
=Paul L. Anderson=: The story only, when writing; consideration of the
reader comes in the preliminary planning.
=William Ashley Anderson=: I think only of the story without regard to
readers, on the assumption that a good story will never fail to find
readers.
=H. C. Bailey=: A distinction between thinking of the story itself and
of the reader is to me difficult. I suppose my mind is chiefly concerned
to make the words express what is real in my imagination--but that
implies considering a reader. Of course it is necessary sometimes in
revising to simplify.
=Edwin Balmer=: On the story. When revising, somewhat on the readers.
=Ralph Henry Barbour=: In writing, my mind does its own centering, and
it centers on the story. The reader gets a mighty small look-in. In
revising, the reader is considered. But, as I've already said, I don't
revise much.
=Frederick Orin Bartlett=: I never have my readers in mind either in
writing or revising. It is extremely difficult for me to visualize a
reader of any sort until the story is actually in print. Then I feel my
audience only as individuals write to me or in some other way respond.
=Nalbro Bartley=: When I write, I think of only the story--never whether
anybody is going to read it--or pay for it, for that matter. But when,
after it has been cold-in-a-drawer for about a week, I revise, I try to
think of the nature of the story which the editor originally
ordered--whether or not it hits any forbidden spots and if the average
reader is going to respond or not. I think impersonal revision is the
most valuable sort.
=Konrad Bercovici=: I never have the reader in mind when I write. I do
not want him to have me in his mind either. It is the story. Nothing
else.
=Ferdinand Berthoud=: I'm afraid that in my amateurish way I center my
mind wholly on my story--laugh and cry with my characters. However, now
I'm learning and getting a little more experienced I am trying to be
less selfish and to think of the readers.
=H. H. Birney, Jr.=: On the story.
=Farnham Bishop=: Write for the story, revise for the reader. Except
that, whenever explaining anything, I keep trying to be clear enough for
the layman, accurate enough for the expert, and interesting enough for
both. (Result of ten years lecturing on semi-technical subjects to
general audiences.)
=Algernon Blackwood=: I never give the reader a single thought. To some
imaginary reader, sitting at a desk inside my own mind, I tell my story.
It is written to express--to relieve--an emotion in my own being. It is
never written to please other readers or any imaginable public.
=Max Bonter=: As closely as I have been able to come to it, I am a dual
personality when I write. My imagination invents, but reason checks.
Reason seems in my case to represent prospective readers.
=Katharine Holland Brown=: First, write down all the story before it
gets away. With no regard for any reader.
Second, revise, and try to make the story intelligible and to make it
march.
=F. R. Buckley=: I center my mind on the story. I have thought of the
readers beforehand, that is, I know what will go and what won't: have
generally studied the magazine I'm writing for and got general
atmosphere of the stuff it uses; can't get more than that. In this
atmosphere I have framed the story as previously detailed. That's all I
have to do with the readers.
=Prosper Buranelli=: I never think of readers--am never too sure I shall
have any. You don't think of a third party, whom to convince, when you
are working out a proof in geometry.
=Thompson Burtis=: I center myself on the story. Occasionally the
readers enter the picture when I am using technical stuff which I
realize I must write down to them.
=George M. A. Cain=: Am not clear about this. I endeavor to tell the
reader enough to guide him to so much of my vision as is vital to the
story. I think he seldom escapes my consciousness. I think of him as
reading what I tell. If I am writing for public speech, I think of
myself as saying the words to an audience imagined before me while I
write.
=Robert V. Carr=: When I want to sell my story, I write with the reader
in mind. When I want to enjoy writing, I forget the reader. I am not
sufficiently egotistical to want to reform the reader, neither do I
desire to uplift him or to change his prejudices and superstitions to
fit my mold.
I believe that intelligence decreases with numbers; therefore I am not a
democrat. It has been my observation that nothing arouses the hatred of
the average man so much as the power to do him good. If one has the
power to hurt him, to destroy him, he will erect a statue in honor of
the possessor of that power. But if one has the power to do him good,
and he lacks that power, he will, sooner or later, fly at the possessor
of the power to do good like a mad dog. Pessimistic? It is no more
logical to hope for the best than to hope for the worst.
Why should I bounce a stone off the reader's head when all he asks from
me is a shot of literary hop to make him forget the next installment on
his tin canary, the ever-increasing double chins of his wife, his
children who no longer make him feel a glow of pride by their
resemblance to him, or his late patriotic debauch from which he is now
recovering with a door-mat tongue and a general feeling of seediness?
Why should I attempt to make a reader think, when I know so little
myself? I should try to amuse him and let it go at that.
=George L. Catton=: It all depends. Tastes differ. Personally I don't
care a penny for "blood and thunder" stories, all action to no end and
without a theme or soul. But the vast majority of readers to-day want
that kind of story and if an author wants to keep eating he's got to
kill his own likes and dislikes for his stomach's sake. I like stories
with action of brains, not brawn, but money talks. I have to keep my
mind on my readers' likes and dislikes when I'm writing to keep my bread
basket from blowing away. Otherwise I'd write what I liked myself, never
think about my readers, and do better work--from a literary viewpoint.
=Robert W. Chambers=: The story only. In revising, the story alone.
=Roy P. Churchill=: My best stories come when I center on the story, but
it is very hard when the readers' so-called limitations are so borne in
upon you. For instance, terms and expressions of sailors seem to need
some explanation when told to a landsman. Yet, do they? My most
enjoyable reading is when the writer fires on regardless and lets you
understand or not. Makes you work your own mind just a trifle to "get"
what he is driving at.
=Carl Clausen=: Always on the story.
=Courtney Ryley Cooper=: Absolutely on the story. In revising, or rather
editing, I watch the things that I know a reader will look for. But the
story comes first. Because if it isn't a story--there won't be any
readers!
=Arthur Crabb=: I think that when I write I have the story in mind and
not the reader. The same is true in revising.
=Mary Stewart Cutting=: I center my mind on the story itself. I have my
reader in mind in so far as I wish to write it clearly; in the
vernacular "to get it over."
=Elmer Davis=: I used to center on the story itself, but they didn't
sell. Now I center on the editor at whom I am aiming it. Yes, I know you
will say that is all wrong. It is, for Tolstoy, Balzac, etc. But not for
the sort of writers who make their living out of checks.
=William H. Dean=: My God! Never on the reader! That's fatal. If one
tries to write to or for an audience, his work is worse than mediocre. I
think of my characters and their destinies, think only of them--do my
best to interpret, never to invent. If my readers like what I write,
they agree with my interpretations. If any beginner should ask me to
give him a single rule to observe, I should say, "Always write to
interpret; you will go down in defeat if you ever deliberately set about
to please any reader."
=Harris Dickson=: Don't think I ever have the reader in mind, except
when in matters of local coloring I must consider viewpoints outside of
the South and remember to make myself clear. Frequently I do not employ
certain forms of colloquialism because the outside reader may not
comprehend--and explanations are generally bad. In public speaking,
however, this is different. There you face your audience and get a
response. Many times the speaker practically follows his audience,
falling into the same vein of thought and traveling along in harmony.
Over and over again I felt this on the platform during our wartime
publicity campaigns. Again, the speaker may feel a hostility or lack of
comprehension in his audience, that he must go further, explain more
clearly, hammer in a fact. Or he may feel that his audience has "got"
his slightest gesture, that they comprehend fully, and no more is
needed.
=Captain Dingle=: I never think of the reader. I lose myself in the
story. I am my characters, in turn, within limits.
=Louis Dodge=: I think of my story, not of my readers, when I write;
however, I try to finish my story--to put on paper what I have in mind,
to make things fairly plain.
=Phyllis Duganne=: I don't think of readers when I'm writing. At least,
I suppose I do in a way--I try to make people and things in a story
convincing, and as I'm convinced at the start, I must be considering
readers. But I don't think of them consciously; it's just the story I'm
consciously considering. In revising, I think frequently of
editors--after all, they're rather important.
=J. Allan Dunn=: I do not think I have my readers largely in the
forefront of my mind, save as I know they are apt to clamor, through the
editor, for the satisfactory ending. Which is one reason why I like to
write for ----. There I am practically untrammeled. I am unconscious of
an audience and I want to be.
=Walter A. Dyer=: I become preoccupied, when writing, with the story
rather than with my readers, and I am afraid I too often leave the
editors entirely out of account. I have, however, in the case of stories
for boys, had to keep my audience in mind.
=Walter Prichard Eaton=: I never have my readers in mind when I write.
My one job is to get into words the idea in my head. Alas! _before I
begin_ I consider whether it is an idea which will sell. That is because
we all feel we have to live. In revising, I try only to make what I have
written correspond more closely with the idea I set out to convey--and
also, I try, often, to make my sentence rhythms more attractive to the
ear.
=E. O. Foster=: When I write I center my mind on the story itself and I
am ashamed to say that I do not have my readers in mind, except as I
write I know there are over four million ex-service men in the United
States who are probably watching to catch me in an inaccuracy. I also
consider that I am writing about the time of the Spanish-American War
and that the tactics and military evolution have changed considerably in
these years. Fortunately I was also in the World War and know what the
changes are.
=Arthur O. Friel=: The story excludes everything else.
=J. U. Giesy=: Mainly on the story, the scene and action I wish to
paint.
=George Gilbert=: I think only of the story. After it is written I think
of selling it. But although this answer seems to exclude the readers, it
puts them first, for I have confidence enough in what I write to make me
think that if it is printed readers will like it. If I did not, I would
not write anything.
=Kenneth Gilbert=: When I write, my mind is centered on the story
itself, but the reader is not forgotten, merely crowded back a bit.
=Holworthy Hall=: I never think of the reader at all. In the first
place, I think of the story itself--and afterward if I ever consider any
one else, it is the editor and not the reader. We are all constantly
selling stories to editors, but never to subscribers. It is the editor's
job and not mine--to consider what he imagines his subscribers want to
read. During the actual writing of a story I think of nothing but the
urgency of translating into words the ideas which are in my mind.
=Richard Matthews Hallet=: When writing I certainly think first of
pleasing myself in the effects I fight for; but a habit of stepping out
of your own skin and into the skin of a reader should be a healthy one
and indeed is three-parts, if not the whole of self-criticism, without a
wholesome infusion of which I doubt if much real work gets done. But
don't start by trying to please other people. Please yourself first. As
Walter Pater says of "that principle axiomatic in literature," that, "to
know when one's self is interested, is the first condition of
interesting other people." I have gone astray before now by deluding
myself into thinking I was interested in a given story simply because I
had decided to write it.
=William H. Hamby=: On the story itself. I never think of the reader
unless it is some point that it occurs to me might be misunderstood.
=A. Judson Hanna=: I seldom thought of the reader, merely writing a
story as it came to me, until I began receiving the circulars sent to
contributors by ----. When writing now I try to consider the effect of a
story on the reader. I always have the editor in mind as I write.
=Joseph Mills Hanson=: I think of the story; very seldom of the readers
of it.
=E. E. Harriman=: I center my mind on the story--try to make it
natural--vivid--strong. The reader may go to Hades for all I care then.
All I am thinking of is the responsibility I have to bring this
character out unblemished and with the affectionate regard of the public
or to save that one alive and in possession of his claim.
=Nevil G. Henshaw=: In making the first draft I think only of the story.
In revising of the reader.
=Joseph Hergesheimer=: Never the reader!
=Robert Hichens=: When I am writing, I do not think about readers, only
about my subject, my characters and how I am expressing myself.
=R. de S. Horn=: When I write I consider the story alone, until it is
almost finished or rather until the final corrections are ready to be
made. Then I consider my readers only so much as to correct with an eye
to avoiding technicalities which they might fail to understand. Every
story in my opinion has one particular style prescribed by the story
itself as visualized by the author. If he allows himself to be swayed by
considerations of the people who will read it or the magazines that may
buy it, he is playing himself false and I believe the story will show
it. The thing to do is to write the story as your consciousness tells
you it should be written and then leave it to the literary agent to find
the magazine and class of readers that it will best fit. I think the
best illustration of this fact is that invariably our best authors'
biggest works have come before the magazines have had a chance to
subsidize him and buy his output in advance, thereby purchasing the
right to "advise" what form his work should take.
=Clyde B. Hough=: When I write I am not aware of the fact that there are
to be readers. A standard is hung up somewhere in the back of my mind as
a sort of goal to drive it, but my mind is really concentrated on the
characters and their action, particularly their action.
=Emerson Hough=: I never think of my readers. Poor people!
=A. S. M. Hutchinson=: Most emphatically no. I never give a thought to
the reader. The idea of doing so is extraordinary to me. It is
impossible and ridiculous. How can you tell a story if you are thinking
about its effect on the people?
=Inez Haynes Irwin=: I do not think I ever think of my readers at all.
In writing I am always thinking of my own impressions of my work. I have
to bear in mind certain limitations of subject which publication in
magazines involves. That of course is another story. Revising is a work
I revel in--and I think only of my own pleasure.
=Will Irwin=: In writing the story I have only the story in mind. In
revising, I think of the reader. For by now I have the succession of
events and pictures so clearly established in my imagination that I am
likely to take too many things for granted.
=Charles Tenney Jackson=: The story alone. I have never given the reader
much thought. Now and then I wonder what the devil's the matter with an
editor!
=Frederick J. Jackson=: In writing I center my mind on the story itself;
the same fellow who takes the hindmost can take the readers. If my story
can interest a critical reader like myself, it's a cinch it will
interest others. I have a large number of partly completed stories. They
were never finished because they did not interest _me_. If they have
failed in this initial test they are too dead to have much chance with
others.
=Mary Johnston=: The story. In revising, the same.
=John Joseph=: I am quite sure that I never write a paragraph without
pausing to consider the reader's probable reaction to it. Lately I have
been learning to keep one eye on the editor too.
=Lloyd Kohler=: I think that as a rule I constantly keep my readers in
mind while writing a story. At any rate, the stories which I have really
wanted to write I have never written--because I know it would be
dangerous to try to "get them over."
=Harold Lamb=: Think only of story.
=Sinclair Lewis=: Both, inextricably mixed.
=Hapsburg Liebe=: I don't have anything in mind but the story itself
when writing a story.
=Romaine H. Lowdermilk=: I center on the _story_ alone in the first
draft. Thereafter I keep the reader in mind as I revise. Especially do I
try to make each sentence and paragraph clear. I try to be merciful as
well as lucid and say what I have to say as clearly and as
entertainingly as I can without artificial means of tricking for
interest. Though I do resort to sustained suspense in the body of the
tale as well as bring in obstacles and the like much as we encounter
them every day in our efforts.
=Eugene P. Lyle, Jr.=: I'm afraid my mind is centered mostly on the
story itself and I'm not thinking of the reader. Get a good story
clearly told and you needn't bother about the reader; he'll do the
reading all right.
=Rose Macaulay=: Both.
=Crittenden Marriott=: On the story. I write a lot to "get it off my
chest."
=Homer I. McEldowney=: When I write I center my mind rather intently on
the story itself, with my reader, however, parked on the side-lines. I
don't forget that he is there. I believe that I am coming to give him a
thought more often as I write more. Undoubtedly I take him into greater
consideration in my revision of detail, reference and diction than I did
at first.
=Ray McGillivray=: I do all my deciding in regard to market, and all the
work of reconciling recalcitrant characters to the dictates of good
taste (as best I can guess both) before a word is written. Never was
there a fiction horse which ran well with either of these check-reins on
his neck.
=Helen Topping Miller=: When I write I do not consider my reader at all.
I am concerned with my characters; I live, move, think and feel with
them. Even in revising I do not think of my reader. I work hard for a
true picture, and usually I find the reader gets it, if I have felt it
strongly enough.
=Thomas Samson Miller=: Center the mind on the story, of course; but
never let the reader--_and_ editor--out of sight. Keep in mind certain
peculiarities of editors, taboos of magazines, and, above all, take care
to avoid offending popular tastes and prejudices, and keep in mind the
average stupidity and that average human beings are non-visual and
non-imaginative. At least I do so when writing with dollars in view.
Sometimes--quite often, in fact--I indulge in truth and in beauty--in
_art_, that is to say.
=Anne Shannon Monroe=: I never think of my readers: when I write I am
galloping ahead on a lively good time of my own: and when it is all
finished, I hope it will mean a good time to some one else--but I am not
particular about that.
=L. M. Montgomery=: In writing a story I do not think of all these
things--at least consciously. I never think of my readers at all. I
think of myself. Does this story I am writing interest _me_ as I write
it--does it satisfy _me_? If so, there are enough people in the world
who like what I like to find it interesting and satisfying too. As for
the others, I couldn't please them anyhow, so it is of no use to try. I
revise to satisfy myself also--not any imaginary literary critic.
=Frederick Moore=: When I write I center my mind on the story--I live it
and sleep it until it is done. It exists wholly, just as much as the
Grand Central Station exists. It has to. I do not think of the reader
then, with the exception of what result I want to get with every word,
every phrase, every sentence. But when I see it in type, then I think
actually of the reader--and shiver.
=Talbot Mundy=: The story. Hardly ever conscious of the reader.
=Kathleen Norris=: In both writing and revising I never have anything in
mind but the story itself, and the struggle to preserve consistency and
verisimilitude.
=Anne O'Hagan=: My mind centers upon the story and I forget about the
readers until the story begins to come back from the editors.
=Grant Overton=: I do not think I ever think of my readers when actually
writing. Afterward in reading it over I may think of them. I do not
think of them very much anyway. I think of how I like it myself.
=Sir Gilbert Parker=: On the story itself always, never on the reader.
=Hugh Pendexter=: I never have the reader in mind while writing a story.
The story is as real as any news assignment I covered when a newswriter.
=Clay Perry=: I believe the "readers" are absent when I write, unless a
dim nebulous sort of personality in the back of my head which might be
called "One," and represent my idea of the composite taste and judgment
of an average, well-educated person, could be called "Mr. Average
Reader" (or perhaps a little above the average). If a story is worth
writing, it seems to me, it must absorb the writer, he must live in it,
become familiar with his characters.
=Michael J. Phillips=: I think the reader is pretty constantly at the
back of my mind. He is always, though sometimes unconsciously, being
taken into consideration.
=Walter B. Pitkin=: When I write my first draft, I think only of the
story I am telling. When I go to the second draft I tend to think of
both editor and reader. This is only roughly and broadly true.
=E. S. Pladwell=: My mind is centered on the story itself. If the story
is good the reader will read. I wish to cater to the reader's taste only
in a general way; that is, I know that all the mainsprings of human life
and drama are the same to reader and writer alike, and therefore a story
which appeals to the humanity of a writer must automatically appeal to
the humanity of a reader, in a general way, always provided that the
other elements of a good story are present, such as plot, technique,
etc.
=Lucia Mead Priest=: I seem to have about all I can do to keep my story
folk where they belong. It is perhaps unfortunate, but "readers" are a
negligible quantity--seldom in the count.
=Eugene Manlove Rhodes=: Center on the story itself. Think of readers
when revising.
=Frank C. Robertson=: My mind is always centered upon the story I am
writing, except where some question of probability or plausibility
arises. Right there I stop and work it out from an imaginary reader's
viewpoint. Of course, in rewriting I have the reader constantly in mind.
=Ruth Sawyer=: On the story itself.
=Chester L. Saxby=: I do not have the reader in mind. I write stories
that nobody wants because they don't come out pleasantly, or for some
other reason. That's because anything worth writing gets a hold on me as
a subject for thought and I want to express it for my own satisfaction.
=Barry Scobee=: On the story. Never think of the reader, unless now and
then in difficult passages I wonder if the reader will grasp the
meaning.
=R. T. M. Scott=: I have my readers always in the back of my mind, but
just sufficiently to keep away from things like the war which editors
are fed up on. (Perhaps the editors and not the readers are in the back
of my mind.) Otherwise I forget the world or all of it which lies beyond
the story.
=Robert Simpson=: I center my mind on the story only. Subconsciously, I
suppose, my future audience is being considered while I labor
strenuously over revision.
=Arthur D. Howden Smith=: Try to think only of the story.
=Norman Springer=: My tendency is, of course, to think only of the story
while writing it. This query uncovers a curious thing. Now, when I write
a story, I have a tendency to ramble. The trouble usually is that I am
too much interested in my character. I like to investigate his feelings
and thoughts at much too great length.
Well, I have developed a critic in the mind who works while I write. It
is as though some faculty were standing quite aloof from me and the
story, watching. When I wander into by-paths it checks me. Sometimes it
doesn't, and I get into a mess. It is a faculty that is constantly
getting stronger, and, like the fond mother, I have great hopes of it.
I've talked this thing over with other fiction writers and I find it's a
rather common experience. Several of them told me that throughout their
careers as writers they have been conscious of this slowly developing
faculty for self-criticism while at work.
=Julian Street=: I don't have my readers in mind at all until after the
story is done--save that I always try to make things _clear_ to a vague
some one to whom I am telling my story. But in writing the story--the
people in the story--are everything. I don't think of editors, either. I
write to the severest critic I have inside me.
=T. S. Stribling=: A "reader" never enters my mind. I never give a hang
whether anybody reads it or not, or what they think about it so long as
I can get past the editor and get a check. I want the check because I
can't live in idleness without it.
=Booth Tarkington=: I don't have _readers_ in mind--only myself as a
reader.
=W. C. Tuttle=: I suppose that a writer should consider the reader, but
I have never done so; it has always been a case of story first; feeling
that, if the story is good, the reader gets the real consideration.
=Lucille Van Slyke=: Your question hits upon the greatest snag in my
attempt to write. I find it bothers me excessively to have to keep any
reader in mind; it's a mental hazard to me to think of anybody that I
know personally reading what I am writing--a perfectly childish stage
fright. (I qualify this--I dearly love writing a story for a child.) I
am scared to submit a story to an editor after I have met him--don't
mind at all having it slammed at fifty editors I have never met. Realize
it's foolish and feminine and illogical, but it's so. But I do try to
visualize a sort of composite reader when I am revising. Example--just
now I am doing a year's ghastly potboiling--a thousand words a day six
days a week for a newspaper syndicate. Each day is a separate short
story, all hinge together--climax each sixth--larger climax each month
with a bang at the end of six months. This is the most disagreeable
writing task that I have ever tackled. It's plain deadly. But I never
sit down to it that I do not lay aside my usual writing method. Remind
myself of this: Whoever reads what I am writing now is a person in a
hurry. I will have the attention at the most for not more than two
minutes. Scattered or tired attention. I must literally jab. Short
sentences, short paragraphs. Few adjectives and always the same ones
when I mention a character already mentioned, so that I can save my
regular reader's time. And I must write very carefully with extra
clearness. This rubberstamping must be neatly done. Nobody has issued
such orders to me but myself and I may be wrong, all wrong! But if I
could visualize my magazine reader or book reader as clearly, I dare say
it would be a very good thing for me as a writer. Only, I forget the
reader entirely when I'm working on the thing that really interests me.
=Atreus von Schrader=: When I write I do not have my readers in mind.
But I have considered them carefully beforehand ... also the editor to
whom I hope to sell the piece.
=T. Von Ziekursch=: When I write the reader is an outsider and never has
a chance. It is one of my biggest hopes to bring some fun and joy, some
touches of life, some deeper thoughts to any who may read my stories;
but I certainly never have and probably never shall give these possible
readers a thought. I would write if I never sold a word of it. I wanted
to for years when I never had an outside opportunity to get within
gunshot of a paper and pencil; I could pour out a lot of those yearnings
right here, but what's the use? Now I am in a place where I can write, I
am fairly young and, believe me, I'm going to it with both spurs working
hard. My mind is unequivocally centered on what I want to write. I hope
to find markets for it and readers who'll like it, but I'd write it just
the same if I didn't.
=Henry Kitchell Webster=: This question is answered, better than I can
answer it here, in my contribution to _The New Republic_ Symposium on
the Novel, entitled, "A Brace of Definitions and a Short Code."
=G. A. Wells=: I consider nothing but the story. It is there to be told
and I try to tell it to the best of my rather poor ability. The reader
for me does not exist. It doesn't make any difference whether anybody
reads it, other than a continual complaint of unworthiness of my stories
would soon put me _persona non grata_ with publishers.
=William Wells=: Center too much on the story. Am breaking myself of
that bad habit.
=Ben Ames Williams=: When I write, my mind is on the job of writing. I
never consciously consider either reader or editor. I try to tell the
story in an appealing way. But if you ask me who I am trying to appeal
to, I can't answer you!
=Honore Willsie=: In writing or revising I never think of the reader.
=H. C. Witwer=: In writing, I have nothing in mind but the story. A
wandering mind is fatal to good work. I think of the readers when I see
my yarn printed and--when I get the mail.
=William Almon Wolff=: On the story, emphatically and always. I take the
reader into account, in revision, to this extent: My final revision
follows a reading by a friend. I'm interested in whether he likes the
story, but only academically--I can't do anything about that. But I want
to know whether everything is clear. I will take infinite pains in
revision if a comment indicates that I haven't explained something
fully; if my meaning has eluded this reader. On that point I'm always
wrong and my reader is always right--the fact that I can explain the
confusion doesn't count. You can't follow your story, explaining every
point readers don't understand.
=Edgar Young=: I center on the story.