This is assuming all editors are created equal, which we know is not the case. By Mercy and Michael B's accounts, editing was a problem at Silver. Fenraven is claiming s/he was told to rewrite, which conflicts with what at least one of his/her authors is saying.
Granted, we all know some authors will complain unfairly about edits. However, if bad editing is a complaint being lodged with Silver, and the editors had a different understanding of what their job was than the authors, it's at least worth noting.
I've seen Fenraven's rant about this. She didn't think rewriting the books was a good idea, she didn't want to do it, and she was very conscious of the amount of wasted effort it represented.
I've met more than my share of the sort of editorial freelancers who rewrite books unasked. They don't have opinions like Fenraven's. If you tax them with overdoing an edit, they say stuff like "I had to fix it -- it was wrong!" or "I was just trying to make it better," or they cite a bunch of "rules" of English that no one else has ever heard of before. They never
say "What I did was a big waste of time, and it didn't make the books more saleable."
There is another pattern I know of which may explain the known editorial phenomena. It starts when an in-house editor commits drastic edits upon a manuscript, then hands it over to Production for a standard copyedit. Alternately, it can start with someone at the publishing house handing off the manuscript to an editorial freelancer, and asking them
to commit drastic edits upon it. Either way, the the result is the same: the author takes one look at the edits and comes screaming back to the publishing house.
"Oooh gosh," says the publisher or in-house editor, who is a spineless wimp, "look what the naughty freelancer did to your book! Pity it's too late to do anything about it." Result: the publisher or in-house editor is off the hook, the author wants to kill the freelancer, and the drastic edits are let stand.
This is not as rare an occurrence as it ought to be.
So: Michael was yelling at someone at Silver Publishing about the editing done on his book. That person said "Blame Fenraven -- she exceeded our instructions by a country mile!" Meanwhile, Fenraven is making noises like an editor who's been made to do useless work on hapless books, and sounding not at all like the kind of perspective-deprived obsessive weirdo who can't understand the difference between copyediting a book and rewriting it.
This is just my opinion, but unless additional evidence turns up, I'm going to assume that Fenraven is telling the truth, and Michael B is telling the truth as he knows it, but that Michael B was lied to by someone at Silver Publishing. Unimaginable, right?
This discussion of editing practices is a distraction from the subject of Silver Publishing's business practices, including their admitted embezzlement of author royalties. I'm guilty of engaging in it too. I'm mindful that Silver Publishing's authors and prospective writers need to be able to find and swap information about SP without having to wade hip-deep through tales of editorial woe.