While I pretty much agree with what's being said here, and I certainly agree with the conclusion, I disagree with this point of view:

> It follows, Sartre argues, that the act of writing, as a means to convey a thought to a reader, may only be completed through the act of reading. Reading can only be done by others; writing, therefore, only exists to be read – it can serve no other purpose.

That seems like a pretty extreme view, and I find the act of writing can also be useful to the writer. But I think this actually supports the author's conclusion more than Sartre's claim.