What I’m going to say here is completely from the position of an editor/publisher. 
It’s mainly because I see a lot of authors talking about edits and what they do with them.
My first topic is when an author says edits are merely a suggestion. I have no idea when this began, but editing? Not suggestions. They should never be suggestions. An editor looks at your work and applies their knowledge of storytelling, pacing, characterization, and grammar. The author themselves cannot objectively do this themselves. This is why no author is beyond editing. An author cannot see the mistakes in their work. Many times, it’s because—in the author’s head—everything is laid out. They know every little thing about that story, and so their mind fills in the blanks. You need that outside source to say, “Why did John do this?” or “You introduced this plot point in chapter two, but you never resolved it.” or “The ending peters out; it’s weak, and it needs to be fixed.”
Now, does an author have to accept all editing comments? No. There have been many times I’ve gone back and forth in emails with authors about their works. I’ve explained—in detail—why I am asking for this change or that change, and the author has the option of just making the change or sending back an email for further discussion. If an author can justify to me the existing text without any changes, then I accept their choice and move on.
An editor always has to ask themselves as they insert a change, “Am I marking this because it needs work, or is it because I would have written it differently?” It’s a fine line between correcting and strengthening a story and rewriting it due to personal taste and preferences.
The second issue is grammar. It seems a lot of authors think they can just throw grammar out the window and call it artistic license. You can’t. When someone reads something that is grammatically incorrect—even if they don’t know why—they tend to notice. On a number of my posts about grammar, I’ve had readers tell me, “Wow, I knew when I read something like that it was wrong, but I could never put my finger on it.” Things like syntax and punctuation placement and pronoun usage, they all are part of the whole, and while some readers can ignore many errors, a lot can’t. Editing comments are becoming more and more frequent in reader discussions and reviews, and so choosing a publisher who consistently produces flawed work (and I can think of at least half a dozen offhand) is handicapping yourself from the start.
Editing for grammar is a chance for an author to learn the rules of grammar, as many don’t truly know the whys and hows of the words they use. Pay close attention to those edits. Ask questions (I have one author who asks questions of every grammatical change I make, and I encourage it as it’s how they can learn), and if an editor can’t answer why, then it may be time to change publishers as well as reject that particular editing choice.
The third, and final, main topic for me is developmental editing. What is it? Development editing looks deeper than simple grammar and punctuation errors and focuses on the core story structure. Is it strong? Is it engaging? Does the pacing lag at any point? Are there plot holes you can drive a bus through? These are the kinds of things a developmental edit is going to point out. It’s not rewriting so much as taking the author’s foundation and shoring it up. Sometimes it’s a small change: “in Chapter 1, his eyes are blue, but in Chapter 5, they’re brown”. Sometimes it’s a more dramatic change: “the villain says his motivations are X, but he doesn’t act consistently with that in mind”. And sometimes, it can be a major restructuring of a section: “the tension in the last third of the book just isn’t there; we need to rework the pacing and events to amp it back up”.
The biggest misconception about developmental editing is that it’s the publisher’s way of “telling me how to write my book” or “telling the story they want instead of the story I want”. And in a small way, that’s not completely wrong. There are certainly cases in which manuscripts take the reader in a strange direction and the editor works with the author to pull it back. And yes, sometimes that means trying to steer the author in a direction other than their original intention. Some authors choose to view this as an intrusion into their style and voice, while others see it for what it is: the publisher’s intent to make the author’s book as successful as possible.
The publisher and editor are not the author’s enemy, determined to tear their work to shreds and sprinkle it like confetti over the author’s shattered dream. Their goals are ostensibly the same as the author’s goals: create a quality work of fiction, distribute it to the masses, and (hopefully) make lots of money. So it’s strange to see some authors be so venomous toward their editors and actually impede themselves and their success. Sure, your vision and your publisher’s may not always align, and sure, you may disagree this or that change actually brings you closer to the ultimate goal (that being the ‘lots of money’), but that’s when you work with the editor and not against them, until you shape the final work into the absolute best thing it can be.
Yes, in the end it’s your book, but it’s also the publisher’s book—they’ve invested no small amount in its production. The editor is there to bring it into line with the publisher’s style guide and ensure there are no gaping—or even small—plot holes. As harsh as it sound, even the final draft an author sends off to a publisher is not perfect or ready to publish. It will always need work, and if you’re asking people to pay for that book, then you and your publisher owe it to those readers to give them the best book possible. Tight, well paced, strong characters, engaging plot, and with as few grammatical errors as possible. Authors need to stop seeing editors as their enemies and view them as the allies they are.
My first topic is when an author says edits are merely a suggestion. I have no idea when this began, but editing? Not suggestions.
I think the issue here could be pre-submission vs. post-submission editing. If you’re having someone read your story before you submit it, then you can think of those comments as suggestions (although all of them should still be considered and addressed, IMO). (For some people, this also may be a holdover from fanfiction, where the author is also the publisher.)
Once you submit to a publisher, though, it’s no longer just your story. The publisher is taking a risk every time they publish, and that gives them a voice in the finished product. If you disagree with edits from your publisher, then you need to justify your choice. No author should ever ignore an editing comment from the publisher!
And all of these are reasons I try to be “an easy edit.” If I think something is necessary, I will stand up for it, but mostly, I will go with the editor’s instructions, up to and including “Rewrite the last 30 pages.” I’m being paid to write, they’re being paid to edit me. It’s all part of the gig.
I try to turn in the best book I can. But good, hard editors make it so much better.
Shae — I agree that pre-submission comments can be viewed as simply suggestions. At that point, the person offering the comments has no real stake in the matter, and whether an author takes or leaves the suggestions isn’t very important. I think, though, that a lot of authors are trying to apply that same thought process to post-submission editing, and then editors refuse to stand their ground.
Storm Moon Press invests a lot of time and money into each book we produce. Nothing gets fast tracked.
As such, we have a financial and artistic investment in the work, and our suggestions are never to take away from a story, merely add and improve. If an author seriously takes issue with a content suggestion, we’re all for discussion and debate. They just should be as prepared as we are to back up why they think the change shouldn’t implemented.
Angelia — I’d like to think editing improves an already good story. Sometimes, the first third of a book is weak and needs bolstering, and sometimes the last quarter of a book is too rush and needs its pacing reworked. In the end, the finished product should be a great book, not just passable.
We respect our authors and their creative desires, but there comes a point where the creative desire can be a huge detriment to the final product. Authors can be too close to the work to see that, and it’s an editor’s job to help point out the flaws and how to fix them. Publishing a book is a joint effort all around, after all!