For those new to freelancing, the relationship between writers and their editors can seem precarious. Suggestions can seem like critcisms and requests for revisions can seem like rejections. Experience and knowledge can help this perception, that freelancers need not live in fear of the editor. However, sometimes things just don't click between a freelancer and an editor. Say you're working on an assignment for an editor, and you simply can't get the piece the way the editor wants it. Whether it's your fault for not grasping the assignment or the editor's for not being clear, you've reached the point where you just want the damn thing to be over and done with.

When it is over and done with, though, what do you do? Do you wait and re-pitch that editor later on? Or did the frustrating assignment amount to a burnt bridge?

I asked some writers and editors on the MB bulletin boards about when they think it's time to re-fish and when it's time to cut bait with an editor. By and large, the advice amounts to the fact that writers need to quit being so sensitive, yet if their life is improved by not working with a certain editor, then don't do it.

One writer stuck through it all:

"One of my editors used to rewrite my leads--without asking for a revision first or telling me! I'd find out when I picked up the newly released publication. It drove me nuts, but I never said a word.

"Did I give up? No, and it almost never happens now. I did my fair share of whining and complaining to my peers & spouse, but it never got back to my editor (boss). Instead, I did a careful analysis of my version and the editor's changes and figured out what was different and why. Once I got inside the editor's head and understood the changes that were being made, it was MUCH easier to write for this individual, and the editor is now one of my best clients. (I freelance.)

"I think the reason that the editor stuck with me is that my leads weren't badly written...they just didn't meet the needs of the audience. Once I figured out how to do that, the problem was solved. But, that was early in my career, and I've learned a LOT since then."

Another realizes that editors are working for other people, too. Meanwhile, writers need to toughen up and learn from their experiences.

"Having been on both sides of the desk, I now know that there are things outside the realm of my experience as a writer that are affecting the editor and how she works with me.

"There can be gaps between what the editor envisions and what I head for as a writer. As a flexible person who wants to have an ongoing working relationship with an editor, I need to bend like a willow, but not break."

Whatever the case, a writer should weigh cost versus benefit: "If a writer can put his/her ego aside long enough to really evaluate the interaction, then it is possible to distinguish between a challenging editor and an impossible editor. I don't ''give up'' on anyone. In rare cases, I have chosen not to accept assignments that experience has taught me will not be worth the money. But as I said, this is rare, and usually means some egregious wrong-doing. Over the years, I have learned the most from editors I initially pegged as difficult. In reality, they were simply excellent at what they did. It took a long time before I could appreciate that fact."

More on cost/benefit: "For me it's mostly an economical decision. If an editor is paying me enough, I can put up with almost anything. If I am getting $5000 for an assignment, all the little nit-picky questions in the world won't bother me; if the assignment pays $750, I dred getting a message on my answering machine from him that he has ''a few questions.''

For the most part, I find that editors are rarely unreasonable from a purely editorial standpoint. When they have questions, the questions will usually make the article better. When they want something rewritten, it could usually stand to be improved.

"But the question, usually, is are they asking for a higher level of quality than they are paying for? Are they asking you to give them a Rolls Royce but only want to pay for a Nissan? If they were paying me by the hour, and knew that whatever additional work they were asking me to do would come out of their budget, would they still want me to do it?

That's when I start to shut down.

"Once you get experienced, you know how to talk with and deal with an editor to avoid some of these problems. You learn to tell an editor that he's asking for too much and learn how to negoiate with him about what you'll do. You learn to say, ''This is beyond the scope of our original agreement, and if you want me to do this, I will have to charge more.'' You learn to say, ''I like my version as it is.'' You learn when it's okay to simply ignore some of his questions, or delay in responding, because the questions aren't necessarily and if you delay enough it will become moot.

"Of course, the bad thing is, by the time you learn to do all that, you're probably bored of journalisms, and of magazines, and wonder why you didn't go to law school 10 years before."

One writer talked about when it was just time to move on: "Years ago, I had an editor tell me I didn't ''get it'' and question whether I was able to ''take the next step.'' Ugh. It left a bruise, that's for sure. But writing and reporting both require a lot of confidence. You must never, ever let anyone, no matter his or her position, shake your confidence. As soon as they do, you're done.

That editor might have been good, but we were on such different frequencies that we couldn't work together. My confidence couldn't take it. And neither could her red pen."