The Australian Association of Writing Programs

Hi Judith and others,
i've had some difficulties adding posts and have had to download a new browser, but that's beside the point.
Aside from possible technical difficulties raised by Janene, I'm wondering whether the idea of Editors (capital E) is somewhat foreign to the users of this site, as most of us are at the beginnings of establishing a publication history. Editing has a particular role in preparation for publication, and there is a lot of overlap between this role and the more general one of Reader. i'm sure everyone using this site has had some experience with Readers and the difficulties of translating a message to an unappreciative Reader.
i've tried to learn to appreciate unappreciative Readers as they reflect, no doubt, a good proportion of potential general readers of my work. But i couldn't get by with unappreciative Readers alone: it's too discouraging!
Am i making a false distinction?

Vahri's post reminds me of Nabokov's lofty thoughts about Good Readers and Good Writers - I suppose the Good Editor would also possess the items he lists:
 
"Up a trackless slope climbs the master artist, and at the top, on a windy ridge, whom do you think he meets? The panting and happy reader, and there they spontaneously embrace and are linked forever if the book lasts forever.
One evening at a remote provincial college through which I happened to be jogging on a protracted lecture tour, I suggested a little quiz—ten definitions of a reader, and from these ten the students had to choose four definitions that would combine to make a good reader. I have mislaid the list, but as far as I remember the definitions went something like this. Select four answers to the question what should a reader be to be a good reader:
 
1. The reader should belong to a book club.
2. The reader should identify himself or herself with the hero or heroine.
3. The reader should concentrate on the social-economic angle.
4. The reader should prefer a story with action and dialogue to one with none.
5. The reader should have seen the book in a movie.
6. The reader should be a budding author.
7. The reader should have imagination.
8. The reader should have memory.
9. The reader should have a dictionary.
10. The reader should have some artistic sense.
 
The students leaned heavily on emotional identification, action, and the social-economic or historical angle. Of course, as you have guessed, the good reader is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense..."
 

I think if the reader has 7 -10 and is still unappreciative then there just may be a problem with the writing unless of course the reader has "seen the film" first (number 5) which would explain the lack of positive response... so if pushed to just four I would have to drop of dictionary (number 9) as context should take care of this to a degree, so I would exchange Number 5.