Anne Rice is an example of a writer who was very public about how she would never let anyone else touch or change a single word of her work.
Sometimes what you'll find is a writer who makes it big - big enough that they could write their next novel in crayon and it would still be published with as little done to it as possible - which is why you end up with crap like Breaking Dawn.
Good editors are worth their weight in gold.
Anne Rice never let anyone touch her writing, even when she wrote her first story, so she isn't an example of a writer who made it big, and then started telling editors to leave her alone. And none of her books are poorly edited.
And, no, you end up with books like Breaking Dawn because they're good books that most readers love.
I really don't where this notion comes from that when a writer makes it big that writers stop wanting his or her books to be as professional as possible. It simply isn't true, and doesn't even make sense on the surface.
It may be true that some writers could get published if they turned in a manuscript written in crayon, but these writers also know doing so would mean losing readers. The writer almost always takes the blame, not editors, and anyone who thinks there are no bad editors and copy editors out there just hasn't been published enough.
The truth is often that when a writer gets big enough, editors stop doing their job because they know the book is going to sell, even if they don't touch it. I've heard a dozen writers complain about editors not doing the job they used to do, which is precisely why King made the publisher give him a new editor.
Most published writers, no matter how big, take pride in their work, and want it to go out in the best possible shape. Which often means telling a copy editor to leave things the hell alone.
A good editor is a wonderful thing, and so is a good copy editor, but I've seen both completely destroy novels. And even then, the writer gets Te blame because too many new writers have never been through the editorial process, and think all editor and copy editors know what they're doing. It just isn't true.
There are many, many instances when writers should tell editors to STET the whole damned thing.
In the end, it's the writer's book, and editors and copy editor do screw up routinely. When an editor or copy editor is good, and gets it right, I've never heard a writer complain, but any writer who automatically lets editors and copy editors do whatever they want to a book is almost certainly going to be disappointed somewhere down the line.
When a book by a big name writer is published with poor editing, the writer always gets the blame. Readers point and say, "Look at that. He gets a big name, and now he won't let editors do their jobs."
The truth is more often that the editors simply aren't doing their jobs, even when the writer wishes they would.
Though it's also true that when editors and copy editors do enough damage over the years, thee is a strong temptation to tell them to leave everything they way it is. Though this almost always means story and content. When a book comes out with serious errors in grammar and spelling, it's almost always the editor's fault, not the writer's.
I've never, ever met a writer who told editors to leave a misspelled word in the manuscript.
:
