Editors must reject the Author-Reader agreement

Recognizing bumps in a manuscript is an essential part of having the editor's eye. It is very easy to get swept up in the language and implicit authority of the author and simply let him lead you. This is because readers are naturally inclined to regard authors as experts in a particular area. After all, didn't someone pay this person to put opinions between covers?

As a result, there are unspoken author-reader agreements, the most common of which goes something like this: As a reader I give you, the author, access to my brain, because I believe, implicitly or explicitly, that it will be more helpful to me to think your thoughts about a particular subject than it will be to think my own, or at least I want to use your thoughts as a place to start. (This is obviously a simple and very general comment about a complex subject, as fans of Mortimer Adler can attest.)

The editor's job is to respect the author's subject-matter expertise and insights, but to recognize that expertise is only one of several factors critical to creating a good book. An editor has to consciously set aside all author-reader agreements and try to be objective enough to recognize that, in almost every case (that I've come across, anyway), even though the author's work may be fine, or pretty good, or even perfectly satisfactory, if you are willing to think hard, be objective, and where necessary take it apart and put it back together, it can actually become far more helpful to the reader. It can become excellent.