An editor friend of mine told me a story about an author who wrote a story and submitted it. The editor was interested enough to send back a detailed letter of revision. In response, the author sent back a ten-page refutation of the editor's suggestions for revision. The story made me laugh and I told it to my husband. He didn't get why it was so funny. He asked why an author couldn't have an exchange with an editor about requested revisions.

To me, an editorial letter isn't a list of requested revisions. It's a reader response. Now, the editor may think it's a list of requested revisions, but I've found the better ones know it's not. The trick for the author is to figure out what is really wrong and how they want to fix it, based on the editor's comments. This is a lot like mind-reading. I'm utterly serious! Which is why an editor-author match that is successful isn't just finding someone you can work with. It's like a marriage. You have to find someone that thinks like you--as much as possible.

So, you take out the letter and you read it and you see that the editor had a problem with the ending. And you think for a while about why this is so. You realize eventually that you think the real problem is with the beginning, and that is what is making the ending fall flat. So you fix the beginning. Have you found the absolutely one way to fix the problem? No, of course not. Will your editor like your solution? See above. You're going to be happier with an editor who "feels" that your fixed version is right, just like you felt it was.

Unlike my husband's world, where you can just run a program and see if it works, a manuscript "works" subjectively. If you don't agree with the editor's editorial suggestions, there is no point in writing a long letter about why. You just don't share the same vision. Time to move on, find someone who does share that vision. Also, it's a bit unprofessional to whine.