An editor is an accomplice, looking in from the outside. That objective view is essential. We don't write in a vacuum, and we don't publish in a vacuum.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Editing is simply the application of the common sense of any good reader. That's why, to be an editor, you have to be a reader. It's the number one qualification.
I think editors have to come out of a certain kind of community.
One should fight like the devil the temptation to think well of editors. They are all, without exception - at least some of the time, incompetent or crazy.
Being an editor doesn't make you a better writer - or vice versa. The worst thing any editor can do is be in competition with his writer.
In my experience, with very few exceptions - I am, as it happens, one of the exceptions - the one thing that most editors don't want to do is edit. It's not nearly as conducive to a successful career as having lunch out with important agents or going to meetings where you get noticed.
Truth is, every writer has to be a good editor, and you have to edit yourself. It's a skill every writer has to acquire.
I have great editors, and I always have. Somehow, great editors ask the right questions or pose things to you that get you to write better. It's a dance between you, your characters, and your editor.
There are many more want-to-be writers out there than good editors.
I know that many authors say editors don't edit anymore, but that's not been true in my experience.
In a world where everyone is a publisher, no one is an editor. And that is the danger that we face today.