Editors have grown timid... a brave advance is almost inevitably followed by quick back-tracking, generally by dilution and debasement of the original intention.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There are two kinds of editors, those who correct your copy and those who say it's wonderful.
If you're not in the hands of an expert editor, you really can go wrong in a lot of different ways.
Sometimes I can spend as long revising a manuscript as I spent writing it in the first place.
I edit as I write. I revise endlessly. I don't go forward until I know that what I've written is as good as I can make it.
I guess the thing I would say most fervently is that your original impulse to write something is an impulse you should trust, and that if it doesn't work on the first draft, which it hardly ever does, the commitment to revising ought to be something you embrace really early. And to revise and revise and revise.
A good editor understands what you're talking and writing about and doesn't meddle too much.
I don't write a quick draft and then revise; instead, I work slowly page by page, revising and polishing.
The publishing world is very timid. Readers are much braver.
But part of the enjoyment I take in it is finding the most efficient way to do it, which doesn't mean the corrections aren't made. I like to have a feeling of the whole task before I start, even if it changes.
If every editor turns you down, maybe you should take a second look at your text, however, just in case.
No opposing quotes found.