I'm trying to read through this piece but its difficult because I don't really buy the underlying premise that this is indicative of North American editors gene

I'm trying to read through this piece but its difficult because I don't really buy the underlying premise that this is indicative of North American editors generally and even specifically I find it hard to imagine that it is this extraneous at all as often to comment about. I tend to believe writers and their point of view on the editing process. I've been published in a small number of publications and I know the process. My biggest gripe is the cultural norm of not being able to pick or have veto power over the title, not editors that are completely inflexible and stacked with their own moral code which crushes over the prose. At the end of the day this seems like there was no meeting of the minds between the editor and writer before they started working together, but I do not believe it is at all this prevalent anyway. Yes, I'm a Christian too, like the derided editor, but I know the difference between literature and trashy erotica. While I appreciate the former and avoid the latter, I would never brow beat a writer as an editor over the choice of having parents smoke cigarettes in front of their kids and I simply wouldn't take up the task of editing work that was outside my moral boundaries. I like fiction that rings true. Reality includes all sorts of bad parenting. There is a type of writing that is in vogue lately where preconceived biases get validated through a juicy narrative that is obviously unjust and thereby justifying the reader's pre-held notions. I hate it. It's my one concern with the Substack / filter bubble way of doing things. A thousand avid fans can prop up work that is mostly meritless and divisive. Or they can prop up valuable work that the public generally ignores. If only it didn't cut both ways.