Post History
I'd also say it is worth seeing what "light editorial" is about. It might be worth asking what is driving them to change, I'd ask about a few (three) specific changes you see as critical that are ...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-19T22:13:13Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31579 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T07:23:30Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/31579 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
I'd also say it is worth seeing what "light editorial" is about. It might be worth **_asking_** what is driving them to change, I'd ask about a few (three) specific changes you see as critical that are ruined by the editorial changes. If you can understand the _nature_ of their concerns, you might be able to generalize them enough to address them by making your _own_ changes and rewrites to fit their demands, within your own 'rhythm' parameters. For example, what you think of as 'rhythm' is so ungrammatical or forced that, to the editor, it disrupts the flow of reading too much to try and figure out what is supposed to be communicated, which also breaks their suspension of disbelief, and that is why they changed it. If you **know** that, perhaps you can work harder to make it non-disruptive, in your style. Or you can refuse to change it because it is your "art". That is always your prerogative, but exercising it may mean not getting published.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2017-11-21T13:03:46Z (about 7 years ago)
Original score: 9