Has the Role of Editors Changed in the Past Fifty Years?
When I read books like Stephen King's On Writing, there is often the mention of some magazine editor whose scribbled notes at the bottom of rejection slips served as both encouragement and guiding light to the aspiring author. The particular example I'm thinking of is teenaged Stephen's note from a prominent magazine editor which read: 'Not bad, but PUFFY. You need to revise for length. Formula: 2nd Draft = 1st Draft - 10%. Good luck.'

My first impulse when I read that was: 'Good editor! That's exactly what novice authors need to hear.'

My second thought was, 'Good gracious, if I wrote something like that on a rejection note, authors would lynch me as an insensitive jerk.'

The world is different now than it was when Stephen King was starting out. Authors are networked. Anyone with an internet connection and half a brain can download tons of writing advice. There's very little that an editor can tell an author that he probably hasn't already heard (and ignored) before.

(Yes, let's face it -- most of us ignore good advice more often than we take it. It's easier than actually having to make changes.)

So here's the question for the peanut gallery: What role should magazine editors be filling in this new, technologically-connected society? We are no longer needed as dispensers of pre-packaged writing advice. We are somewhat more useful in a one-on-one situation, I think, but there isn't always time for that. What kinds of editorial feedback have you generally found most helpful?