Editors, whether human or AI are, by task, phrasing sanders. Designed to sand, polish, and otherwise strip and rework the authors words and wording. Without exception it is not about an author keeping his agency and voice because in normal editing an author’s voice is replaced by the editor’s. In the best case scenarios the voices are closely matched or the editor is able to parallel the author. At worst, the editor sands everything down to fit their concept of the editing and publishing norms losing nuance and voice in the process.

The only way to address this is to take agency and identify what is lost in the editing. Both AI and human editing must address the loss of nuance in editing and understand that authorial voice is paramount for maintaining the uniqueness of the narratives. This does not preclude the author wanting to kowtow to the current standards, but it makes that choice the authors and not the editors.

In essence, we are placing voice on a spectrum of glass windows. We range from the clear flawless glass pane of Hemingway and Grisham, past the clear quad panes of King to the stained glass of Le Guin and Tolkien, reaching the complex overwrought stained glass of Wolfe.

Every edit large or small will shift meaning or loose meaning during editing and it is up to the author and editor to understand what that shift is and whether it fits the narrative. The majority of narratives and manuscripts are able to absorb the impact of these changes without loss of intent or voice because they write without uniqueness. The rest, outside of the voiceless masses, must understand how edits effect their unique voice and adjust accordingly.

This approach reframes editing from a technical cleanup into an ethical and aesthetic negotiation that protects not just a manuscript but the conditions under which distinctive literature gets made.