writing up papers

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Peter, thanks for your feedback. I was intrigued with your final paragraph: PH: "I 
think writers revert to the stage of the double and really need some decent effective 
doubling type assistance to overcome some of this early stuff which saps conviction, 
undermines knowingness and confidence and bring up fears and worries."

      So, in the role of an editor, what specifically would you do? Or how would you teach 
consulting editors how to respond to submitted papers?

      I sent in a previous response to listserve about how I imagine editing---the idea of 
running a paper by someone as a preliminary, getting feedback and using it to revise... 
but no one responded to me.
      There's two sides to this dance. Even if the editors were optimally, perfectly 
encouraging, there's still a gap of time and space---rather than my direct physical 
presence--- so that the writer of the paper can lapse into the illusion / delusion that it 
doesn't matter, no one cares, and other rationalizations for a basic unwillingness to get 
back into the writing and revising process. Could that be happening?

       And maybe it's a dance that includes people being encouraged repeatedly, warmed up, 
as it were, to the challenge of wrestling, knowing that it will be drawn forward. There's 
work, and then after the review, more work, but it's also worthwhile.

 What do you think?  Or others?

          Warmly, Adam