If the Carver / Lish or the author and his editor

After the case Raymond Carver / Gordon Lish (Editor that virtually created the Carver style known so far), the web magazine's first love an article by Carla Benedetti (professor of Italian literature at the University of Pisa) has opened a discussion on picture editor: one who, by profession, spoke on the author's text to suit the needs of the market in essence. Here I put links to articles that have hitherto animated the debate:

http://www.ilprimoamore.com/testo_1522.html
http://www.ilprimoamore.com/testo_1528.html
http://www.ilprimoamore.com/testo_1531.html
http://www.ilprimoamore.com/testo_1532.html .

I must confess that I have no sympathy for the editors. Once, as pointed out by Carla Benedetti, were within the publishers editorial figures who seek to change the text to be mistakes, grammatical, syntactic, and things like that, without being - as Benedetti writes - in box black and often change the content or even the meaning of the book, like the current editor.
Many authors, in order to achieve publication, you submit.
I wonder if, even getting their consent, such a transaction is legitimate.
I think not. It does a disservice to the creativity and leads to approval.

And 'as if we were in the midst of a dictatorship and the media were forced to publish roughly the same information through a system of tissue that a central editorial prepared according to the wishes of the regime.
If you replace the scheme with the word market, we face a very similar phenomenon is truly deplorable.
I am convinced that few literary novels of our time, at least here in Italy, since when has established the figure of the editor, are intended to survive.
A work of fiction is the result of a moment of creativity, is a birth that can be amended only the placenta that has guarded the inspiring idea: that of those small mistakes that do not alter in any case the character and purpose of the work.
Think of a baby born with its own distinctive appearance, subjected to treatment modified a plastic surgeon, who gives another aspect, which may even be the opposite of the first.
What becomes of that child? What becomes of that author?

One might object: but if the author gives his consent, there is little if any crime and the intervention of the editor is more than legitimate.
But here the offense is not done to delll'autore consent, but against his creativity to the gift he possesses, with respect to its specific capacity to deliver its own creature.
This is done, ie, art, being stunned, bent and pay in the long run to infertility.
This is the offense that make editors. Materialize creativity to reducing product market. And with that conveyed, without having any right, and resize, the future artist, so that he remains forever without ever becoming a chrysalis into a butterfly.