Thank God he was breaking through on the stories now. What had made the last book good was the people who were in the accuracy of the detail which made it believable. He had, really, only to remember accurately and the form came by what he would choose to leave out. Then, of course, he could close it like the diaphragm of a camera and intensify it so it could be concentrated to the point where the heat shone bright and the smoke began to rise. He knew that he was getting this now.
I have good people in my story too. Leaving out all the academic representations of this that and the other would probably be wise and more fun but those academic idioms have to be there for the purpose of creating the aura of dissertation. If I wanted to and had a publisher, it might be fun to rewrite from the camera of my mail artist core. Is the diaphragm of a camera the thing that changes the aperture?