I can probably use a million and one metaphors to describe the relationship between an author and an editor; there’s the player to the coach, the actor to the director, the bread to the meat (in the sandwich that is), there are a lot of good comparisons to be made. However, one thing in all these metaphors rings very true; the editor is the unseen hand guiding the product towards success before it hits the market.
Both articles discussed the edits and changes that editors made on specific pieces of raw literature. On the surface, these criticisms sound like they can be tough for both writer and editor. For a writer, it is hard to see a piece of work broken down into scraps. However, it is hardly any easier for an editor who is trying to find a polite way to fix mistakes in a potential piece of literature.
I think the Saunders article displayed a positive dynamic between a writer and an editor; Saunders and his editor seem to dialogue the writing process with a tone of mutual understanding and agreement. It is quite obvious that they have been working together for a long time. That being clear, I feel that this article gave a little too optimistic of a view on the editor-author relationship.
I liked the Carver article better. This article described a complex relationship between two friends who just happened to have to work together. Lish gave Carver so much feedback that at one point he no longer wanted to publish his work anymore. Now I’m not sure if this makes Lish a good editor for asking his client for nothing short of perfection, or a bad editor for going so far as to make a writer doubt his own skill and profession, but either way I feel that this shows just how complicated this relationship can get. Criticism is a hard thing to both give and recieve.
Drinking Coffee While I Write This 