Piers Anthony has written an amazing book with copious notes on the writing and editing process: But what of Earth? : a novel rendered into a bad example

It's a real case study and full of humor and vigor. Here the quote I thought would be of interest (note: He calls copy-editors "copyed" for short):

>I know from my own experience that the frame of mind used to edit a book differs from that used to write or rewrite it. Editing is a critical process, while writing is a creative process, so that though one copyed may in this case also have been the Writer, I choose to distinguish between them. It's a Jekyll and Hyde case: the writer is a nice guy, while the copyed is an arrogant little tyrant. This is of course true of every writer who edits, not merely this one; check with any writer for confirmation.

I wrote something on this forum without much aforethought, and it came out both overly-pedantic, quite naive and not very helpful. I was called out on it by a discerning commenter - and it just threw me for a loop, regretting the post and thinking all kinds of responses, while neglecting my own writing. It really threw me for a loop. Any advice on how to avoid this - should I curb my posts, so as to avoid castigation? Don't really want to - I'm looking for open discussion - so be thicker skinned? - but how? Any advice?

Just re-read the Wizard of EarthSea and thought the mythopoetic style would be a great fit for the re-writing of a large manuscript that I had great hopes for.
It was a journey story situated in the Nepalese Himalayas that combines many mythic and theological elements. It's all about the inner and outer person and examines how object relations, great philosophies, religions and cultural influences all converge to shape the person – but who is the person? How shaped? At what level of awareness?
This rather grandiose enterprise ultimately got bogged down and relegated to the one-day-my-prince-will-come discarded drafts pile.
Now I'm thinking of taking it up again in the mythopoetic style that seems quite appropriate for grandiosity, but adopting an "open-door" policy - re-writing it as a mythopoetic epic - but sharing the journey and deliberations with others - anyone want to swap "journeys"? Here's the first paragraph as a "taste":

Chapter One: Extremes

>

Just ran into this poignant passage in Bujold's The Spirit Ring (chap 17)

>She could feel it, the drive of art from the inside out, the determination to complete. She had hated her father, some days, for being as willing to consume others as himself to fuel that drive. And what she'd hated in her father she was not at all sure she liked finding in herself.

I liked the way this touches so many threads: the inter-generational artistic connection - how my father's (doomed) struggle as an artist impinges on my own struggles, and the way she phrases this in terms of "consumption" rather than "sacrifice"... and also... the determination to complete is perhaps the best part of art - when you're in the zone and going strong... and yet in the context of interpersonal relationships it's so troublesome... I don't know. Does this resonate with anyone.