An editor is only as good as the percentage of their recommended changes and guidance the author actually adopts.
I’ve worked with many editors over the past couple of decades, and I have encountered some with very solid skills, but whose feedback was often just not taken up by authors. The editors in question raised excellent points but they just couldn't deliver the feedback in such a way as to influence the author. This is because an author’s writing is the most personal extension of themselves (apart from their children) and no matter how much they firmly believe they can take sharp feedback, defense mechanisms trigger them away from too-direct/raw criticism. All the brilliant editorial insights in the world remain wasted if ignored by the author.
But this is the editor’s job to communicate with the author effectively, not the author’s job to just endure criticism. Editorial feedback should not read like academic peer reviews (sorry, academic folks, but you lot often border on brutality). Yes, authors may just be defensive (it’s human, no blame or shame in that game), but their editors may also just not be communicating in a way that encourages listening. If so, authors have the right to tell their editor just how they feel and correct course.
An author’s job: Write the best book they have in them. The editor’s job: Do what it takes to ensure that the author does just that. This shared responsibility hinges on respectful and supportive communications. Otherwise, the book suffers and no one wins.
Editors should demand the best from their authors, but authors should also demand the very same from their editors.
Crankily yours,