to assist her further, but hopes that he will not trouble to send any
answer unless it is quite, quite convenient to him to do so. He doesn't.

In her pre-occupation, she usually forgets either to write her name and
address on the manuscript or to enclose stamps; occasionally she omits
even to stamp her own letter.

* * * * *

Let this be your rule: Don't write to an editor. He has an objection to
both reading letters and answering them; he thinks he does enough when he
peruses your manuscript. A good article requires no explanation; it should
be its own commentary. Be content, therefore, simply to put your article
in an envelope with another envelope, and dispatch it. The editor needs
not to be told that it is sent for publication if suitable and for return
if unsuitable. And he does not care a pin what are your ambitions and your
circumstances; or whether this is your "very first" or your ten thousandth
effort; whether you have written in the flush of health or on your dying
couch; whether you are starving or beautifully rich. What are these facts
to him? They do not in the least affect the value of the article. If it
pleases him, he accepts; if not, he refuses. He is scarcely Adviser-in-
Chief to the Literary Ladies of Great Britain, nor yet the Charity
Organisation Society. He has no interest in you. What interests him is his
circulation, his influence, his advertisement department.

The editorial notices of a few papers state that the title and scope of an
article must be submitted before the article itself. This is absurd, and
in most cases you are safe in ignoring the regulation. An article cannot
be judged by its title and a _resume_ of it, and there is no doubt
that editors who enforce such a rule often decline to see articles which