I love editing nearly as much as writing, and on a blocked day, even more. Still, it is rather amazing that in ten years of editing for three different online publications, dealing with writers of varying abilities, most of my experiences have been positive. The best writers, whether just starting out or more experienced, appreciate feedback that makes their work better.

On first view, new writers sometimes feel daunted by strike-throughs and comments. They may have assumed if the piece was good enough for publication, it needed no further work. Many journals won't accept less than 99% perfect, so an edited manuscript is really a rare gift. Journals that reach out to new and less experienced writers and edit their work not only provide those writers with much needed credits and the chance to be read, they also teach valuable lessons in craft new writers can bank for the future. Consequently, once less experienced writers see their stories or essays actually published in a popular journal, all is forgiven.

Of course, there are always those writers who view their work as pearls cast before swine––the swine being any editor who changes a comma, strikes a word or––ugh––removes an exclamation point or italicized word. I remember one fellow who wasn't satisfied, withdrawing his piece days before the issue went live. He had to write and tell me when another magazine published it "without changing a word." I suppose he thought I'd doubt my abilities, but all editors know the work is subjective, styles of publications vary, and where one editor sees a dazzling string of pearls, another sees pearls requiring some polish.

As Rose & Thorn gained in reputation over the years, the number of submissions from writers with closets full of credits increased. Our editors continue to make quality––not bios––the priority in selecting work, but the editing process is a little different with experienced writers because there are fewer errors in the basic "mechanics" of the writing. Also, experienced writers often work better with general suggestions like, "Character A should be introduced earlier in the story."

Truth be told, I still feel a little trepidation every time I edit the work of a writer who has appeared in journals I only aspire to in my own writing. Not that I hold back, and not that writing ability necessarily correlates with editing ability––it doesn't––but whenever I see that reply in my inbox, I take a deep breath before opening it, half expecting a snooty retort. Not only has that never happened, but experienced writers tend to be the most appreciative of good editing. Confident in their abilities, they see feedback for what it is, a way to make a great piece even better. They know that every writer, even the ones who regularly appear in The New Yorker (not that I've ever edited one of them), can benefit from a critical eye, and they'd rather have an editor point out the awkward line or vague reference than find it themselves six months later when it looks so much more obvious in print.

While rare, I know there will always be those less pleasant interactions down the line. For those times I keep a reminder of one of my best encounters with a writer. Once, Googling myself, I came upon a post about me on a site soliciting writers' best editing experiences. I edited this young woman's article on craft years ago when working at my first online journal. She was writing in English as a second language and was anxious to learn to write for the US market. She drank up everything I said, her article received an award, and she went on to publish several others. I copied and pasted her post into my Word files and take it out when I need something to brighten my less happy editing days.

Nannette Croce is Prose Editor for Rose & Thorn Journal.