Home
How a stranger’s comment changed my essay
A man I had never met stopped me near the tram stop outside a Melbourne bookshop. He had read an essay draft displayed on a table beside discounted paperbacks and handwritten recommendations. His comment was brief: “Where does the reader enter?” He did not wait for a defence, nor did he offer a replacement paragraph. The tram arrived, the doors opened, and I was left holding a sheet of paper with a stranger’s question on it.
The piece I was revising examined the language of public institutions and the ways they sort citizens into familiar categories. Its history was sound, its examples were respectable, and its paragraphs were polished enough to hide the central weakness. The essay spoke with borrowed authority, but gave me little reason to believe the person reading it belonged inside its argument. The question exposed that distance. It asked whether an essay about belonging had left its reader stranded.
The note did not supply a thesis or rewrite the evidence. It changed the question I was asking. Instead of building a case designed to end in agreement, I needed to build an essay that could be entered, tested and disputed by a real reader. That shift brought me closer to the practical purpose of essayistic writing: not to display learning, but to create a trustworthy exchange between a mind, a subject and someone arriving for the first time.
The note in the margin
My first response was to defend the opening. I had written that “policy does not merely describe a population; it produces the categories by which people recognise one another.” It was neat, defensible and remote. The man’s question asked what a reader was meant to do with that sentence. I could identify its sources, but I could not identify the experience it presumed. The note made my eloquence look like a locked door.
In Australian conversations I knew, directness often arrived without ceremony: a tram driver announced the change, a friend answered a complaint with “no worries”, and a colleague moved from small talk to the issue at hand with “fair enough”. My draft had the opposite manner. It circled its subject, deferred every judgment and expected gratitude for the complexity. The stranger’s bluntness was useful because it did not reward those habits. It asked for a clearer contract with the reader.
A reader is not a target
I began replacing “the reader” in my notes with a more demanding phrase: the person opposite me. This was not an attempt to flatter the audience or to claim intimacy I had not earned. It was an editorial test. Could I show why the subject mattered before asking the reader to follow a long argument? Could I distinguish the reader’s likely knowledge from what I wanted to explain? Could I make the stakes visible without turning them into a sales pitch?
That change altered my sense of Australian readership. I had imagined a national audience as a tidy collection of literary magazines and university-educated reviewers. The country resists that picture. Reading lives in more places than prestige narratives acknowledge, from a borrowed copy passed around in a Darwin library to an essay discussed by a book club in Hobart. A writer can address public life without pretending every reader shares the same platform, training or frame of reference.
Rebuilding the essay around attention
The revised draft opened with a scene rather than a definition. Instead of announcing the power of institutional language, I described a form being completed and a word on it that made one applicant feel invisible. The historical material still mattered, but now it had a job: to explain the scene and widen its implications. The reader could see the problem before being asked to accept an abstraction.
The middle of the essay became less ornate. I replaced noun-heavy constructions with plain verbs, cut throat-clearing transitions and shortened paragraphs that hid their point in subordinate clauses. Australian English offered useful discipline here: writing in colour, recognise and favour while avoiding a pile of academic furniture. The aim was not to sound casual, but to make every sentence carry its share of meaning.
I also changed how I handled disagreement. Previously, a counterargument arrived as a decorated exception. In the new version, it became part of the route. I named the strongest objection, explained why it did not overturn the claim and showed where the claim needed qualification. This made the essay less airtight and more credible. The reader could inspect the reasoning instead of being pushed towards a conclusion by tone.
Laughter as an ethical tool
A related piece on finding the humour in difficult subjects captures another part of the lesson. Wit can lower the barrier between a reader and a painful subject, provided it does not turn somebody else’s pain into a performance. The stranger’s question was, in effect, a demand for hospitality. A little directness and a carefully placed joke might open the door; condescension would slam it.
That balance is vital in writing about race and civil rights. Humour can expose an absurdity in institutional language without pretending that the people affected by it are there to entertain us. In Gideon’s Children, the possibility of comedy and the pressure of difficult social history can sit together, provided the stakes remain clear. The revised essay followed that principle: I allowed lightness where it released tension, and kept the facts doing the serious work whenever the joke threatened to become an excuse.
The argument in a local world
Publishing in Australia is a network rather than a single grand entrance. Literary journals, independent bookshops, the larger chains such as Dymocks, public libraries, reading groups and literary festivals all carry nonfiction into different communities. Many encounters happen without a stage: someone borrows an ebook, hears an audio version on a commute, or passes a dog-eared copy across a kitchen table. An essay that wants a public argument must work in that ordinary traffic, not only before an approving room in Sydney or Melbourne.
For wider public conversation beyond my own pages, I keep the VHE Issu site among the useful stops, because lively publication can treat reader response as part of the work rather than an interruption. This author website has a similar responsibility. It preserves the books, blog, excerpts, interviews and biographical record of Howard G. Franklin, who died in 2016, and it asks visitors to encounter those materials as a continuing conversation. An Irish Experience offers a memoir-travelogue shaped by place; Gideon’s Children offers a novel in which private choices carry public weight. Their stories need readers willing to enter, question and respond.
A disciplined act of revision
I kept the stranger’s question beside the manuscript and tested each section against it. A paragraph that only displayed expertise went; a paragraph that helped the reader see, check or feel the issue stayed. I read the draft aloud, marking sentences where I supplied the rhythm myself or slipped into abstraction. Some changes improved clarity. Others revealed a gap in evidence that no amount of elegant phrasing could close.
The process also changed how I received criticism. A specific objection about sequence, fairness or an unreadable term deserved a response; a preference for a different subject did not. That distinction kept revision from becoming obedience. The goal was not to satisfy one reader, nor to preserve every sentence because it was mine. It was to make the draft answerable to its subject and clearer about the evidence beneath its claims.
A practical revision practice
The following sequence turns a general wish to “write better” into actions a busy writer can actually use. It also keeps the reader’s experience in view without turning every paragraph into a consultation exercise.
- Put the draft aside long enough to forget its intended effects, then read it again without notes.
- State the central claim early and test whether each paragraph advances, complicates or tests it.
- Replace an abstract noun with a concrete action, example or source whenever the sentence becomes difficult to grasp.
- Read the work aloud and mark every place where the breath fails, a definition is missing or the tone changes abruptly.
- Define the likely reader by knowledge and interest, not by an imagined average age, profession or level of expertise.
- Invite one careful reader to mark confusion separately from disagreement, then revise the structure before polishing individual sentences.
These habits do not make criticism painless, but they make it usable. They also preserve the distinction between a draft’s intention and its actual effect. My stranger supplied the smallest possible prompt: one question that made the writer accountable to someone else. A good revision keeps that accountability after the manuscript leaves the desk.
A stranger’s comment changed my essay because it displaced my concern with sounding complete and redirected me toward the person who had to read it. That change made the argument less ornamental, the evidence more exposed and the voice more accountable. It also reminded me why an author website matters. A book may preserve a fixed journey, while a blog and its responses can show the thinking in motion.
Read Gideon’s Children and An Irish Experience through the publication details and bookseller links on this site, explore Howard G. Franklin’s excerpts and interviews, and carry the habit of reading as an active exchange. The work gains meaning when a reader enters it with attention and leaves with a response that the writer is willing to hear.