There is one aspect of professional publishing that is rarely talked about, the tension between publishing and the writer. I am not speaking here about problems in marketing, royalties, or any of the business problems that always come up, which have their own strains. I am referencing the clash of egos between writers and editors.
There are writers who believe that the creation of a book is a one-person endeavor, that what they write is essentially perfect, not to be questioned, not to be changed, but to be published exactly as written. I recall visiting a publisher’s office years ago. There on the top of a copy-edited manuscript of a very famous writer (I am deliberately not giving the author’s name) was scrawled, “God damn it! When I write ‘…’ I mean ‘…’! God damn it.”
On the other side, there are editors who believe that it is they who deserve primary credit for the creation of a quality book. “The Maxwell Perkins syndrome,” I call it, named after a famous editor who did, in fact, just that. These editors believe that their editing turns an unsuccessful manuscript into a well-written and published book, and feel free to rewrite the author’s work. They will say as much among other editors, but never say so to the writer. Or to the public.
I have listened to writers complain about “interfering “editors. Much more rarely have I heard editors talk (well, whisper) about “incompetent” writers who have good ideas but who “can’t really” write. I suspect however, it is a much more widely held belief than is articulated.
A shame really. The editor/writer relationship is so fundamental to the creation of good writing. Trust is necessary. But it has to work both ways. When it does not, the writing suffers greatly.