I've just received the written feedback from an editor in a large publishing house. On the whole it's very critical, with the occassional "could be good" thrown in at the end of sections with a list of negative points.
TLDR: are editors generally negative with infrequent positive comments, or is this a reality check?
Fuller question: I understand that I need to focus on the weaknesses to make it a better story in its entirety, but given the sparcity of positive feedback, should I take a step back from the entire project for a while to get a better perspective or should I act line-by-line in the spirit of her response? After getting quite a lot of positive feedback from amateur beta readers, I'm now confused by differing inputs - some are common (therefore easier to implement) whilst others contradict each other.