“The second thing we do, let’s kill all the editors.”

– William Shakespeare, deleted from Henry IV, Part I

Editors exist to make writers look good, and should be tolerated for that reason. Editors buy stories, and should be allowed to tinker with them, if ever so gently.

There are three good (justifiable) edits: (1) grammatical errors, (2) factual errors and (3) textual errors. If a thing is wrong, false or misplaced, then it should be fixed. Much is owed to editors who do, in fact, make writers look good. If an editor makes a stylistic change that is somehow more true to the writer’s voice, or does something to extend the thematic unity of something the writer has produced, then the editor should be humbly thanked.

(A really nice editor will allow the writer to do the rewrite, deadline permitting. Such editors should be cultivated and, if possible, cloned.)

On the other hand, if an editor makes a change because he or she “wouldn’t put it that way,” the writer should be permitted to chop off one of the editor’s fingers, preferably with a plastic knife. If an editor’s change introduces a grammatical, factual or textual error, the writer should be permitted to bury that knife in the editor’s throat.

In conclusion, editors make good companions, but should not be fed at the table. Also, they should be bathed at least once a week.