First off, it opens with the assertion that the Typo Generation is “an emerging, unconscious literary movement and ethos that should concern us all.” Literary movement implies that the writer is the core problem.

Second, he switches from typo complaints to critique of the writing itself with this line:

“But even if that counterpoint has failed to persuade you, concerningly there are other glaring flaws I’d like to submit to the court.”

That’s it. That’s the segue. There is no clear distinction between editor and author until much later, when he finally gets around to saying “But it is time to move on from the author and text itself.” This is literally 5,000 words into the essay. I don’t think you can call that part of the opening chunk.

And then he reinforces his ill-advised rejection of editorial responsibility immediately with “Although I would argue that any truly serious and ethical writer — one who continually steps back from and revisits a text to trace its anatomy out of aesthetic passion or political or social necessity (because why else would someone be a writer?) — largely (not completely) invalidates the role of an editor.”

This is stupid. Very few writers are so good they don’t need an editor. It’s also objectively clumsy writing; I’m exactly the kind of tortured writer who would put two parenthetical asides inside a digression marked by em-dashes. So I recognize this particular flaw, and I sympathize with it. I just don’t make excuses for it.

And he can’t even allow his conclusion to stand. That second parenthetical, “not completely,” is simply hedging.

And I agree on the timeline being rushed. If the author of the piece had reached conclusions about the state of publishing rather than coining cute terms like “Typo Generation,” I’d be much more sympathetic.