After the case of Raymond Carver, Gordon Lish (Editor that virtually created the style known till now Carver), 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, he works on the author's text to fit in substance to the market needs. 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 editor. Once, as noted Carla Benedetti, were within the publishers editorial figures who seek to change the text to be mistakes, grammatical, syntactic, and things like that without getting - how to write the Benedetti - in the box black and often change the content if not the meaning of the book, as is 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 network of tissue that a central editorial prepared according to the wishes of the regime.
If you replace the scheme with the word market, we are facing a phenomenon quite similar and utterly deplorable.
I am convinced that few literary novels of our time, at least here in Italy, starting from the moment has established the figure of the editor, are intended to survive.
A narrative is the result of a moment of creativity, is a birth that can be reformed only to the placenta which has guarded the inspiration: that of those little mistakes that do not alter in any case the character and the purpose of the work.
Think of a baby born with its own distinctive appearance, subjected to treatment adjusted, by a plastic surgeon, who gives him another look, which may even be the polar opposite of the first.
What becomes that child? What becomes that author?

It might be objected: 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 performed on delll'autore consent, but against his creativity to the gift he possesses, with respect to its specific ability to give birth to its own creature.
This is done, that is, art that is senseless, folded and sentenced to long run to infertility.
This is the offense performing the editor. Materialize creativity and reduced it to market product. And thereby conveyed, without having any right, and resized, the future of the artist, ensuring that he remains forever without ever becoming a chrysalis into a butterfly.