Suzanne Keen’s response to Fletcher and Monterosso evaluates their contribution to cognitive narratology and the psychology of narrative impact. Arguing that “there is more than one possible function for FID,” Fletcher and Monterosso design a clever experiment manipulating textual samples by increasing the amount of discourse in free indirect style in contrast to thought report (psycho-narration) or externalized narration in the originals. Employing follow-up questionnaires about affective response, perspective taking and role taking on the one hand, and attitudes towards revenge on the other hand, Fletcher and Monterosso discover that while FID enriched samples aroused emotional engagement in some readers, the increased emotional response was felt for the victim’s suffering rather than inducing empathy with the revenger’s emotions and actions. Keen discusses the narratological component, free indirect discourse, the link to reader’s empathy, and the methodology of Fletcher and Monterosso’s textual manipulations. With a nod to Louise Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of reading, Keen notes that Fletcher and Monterosso’s work depicts active readers responding differently from one another. She offers cautions about the constitution of research subject pools, which should be as diverse as possible to arrive at persuasive observations about the impact of form. Keen affirms that narrative theorists can both contribute to and benefit from study of the various psychological responses to manipulations of narrative techniques.