The first manuscript was brilliant. Really, it was. I'm in awe of the writer's abilities and think she truly deserves to be published. But I was reading the MS with my editorial hat on because I knew I needed to be more critical than your average reader, and I definitely found things that could be improved upon. Which is fine. What I find interesting is that, even though I thought the book was great, I found it much harder to discuss the good points than the bad.
I'm not sure if this is just me, or if our brains automatically pay more attention to things we don't think are working, because we want to figure out how to fix them. When things work than perhaps we spend a lot less time analysing them, all we need to know is that it works, right? Do you do this too?
Maybe we (or I, if I am alone in this) should be spending just as much time figuring out what a writer has done right, and how, as we do analysing what has gone wrong. Surely it's just as important to understand what is good, what to aim for, as it is to understand what doesn't work and what to avoid.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you focus on the bad when reading with an editorial eye, or are you able to assess the good just as readily as you assess the parts that need fixing?