Post History
I've just received the written feedback from an editor in a large publishing house. On the whole it's very critical, with the occassional "could be good" thrown in at the end of sections with a lis...
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T06:25:30Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/27886 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
Brereton
·
2019-12-08T06:25:30Z (almost 5 years ago)
I've just received the written feedback from an editor in a large publishing house. On the whole it's very critical, with the occassional "could be good" thrown in at the end of sections with a list of negative points. TLDR: **are editors generally negative with infrequent positive comments, or is this a reality check?** Fuller question: I understand that I need to focus on the weaknesses to make it a better story in its entirety, but given the sparcity of positive feedback, should I take a step back from the entire project for a while to get a better perspective or should I act line-by-line in the spirit of her response? After getting quite a lot of positive feedback from amateur beta readers, I'm now confused by differing inputs - some are common (therefore easier to implement) whilst others contradict each other.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2017-05-03T16:32:08Z (over 7 years ago)
Original score: 6