The wisest minds in the writing world will tell you how important it is to get a third party perspective on your story when it comes time to edit. A 'fresh eye' reader, as it's known in the journalism world, has not been running the story and language through his or her head for weeks (or months, if it's a novel) and doesn't know what's 'supposed' to happen in the plot. So character weaknesses, plot holes, literals and other deficiencies will be far more apparent to that reader.
The more fresh eyes you can get on your writing, the better. What one reader's eye skims over, another's might jag on. What one reader criticises, another might praise. But it's all about objectivity - about asking the opinion of someone who doesn't have 200 man-hours of composition invested in the work.
Which is all well and good, but what if you don't have that sort of reader support network?
I was in my early twenties the last time I had a reader I felt I could count on. He was a friend from university who also wrote fiction. We amicably grew apart, as friends sometimes do when adulthood sends them on different paths, but more than once I've wished he was still around so I could slide a manuscript in front of him and then discuss it over a beer a few days later. Oh, I have intelligent people scattered all around my social circle, many of them journalists, but asking them to read my work would be an imposition. They don't write fiction. The favour would never be returned, if you get my drift.
I know what some of you are thinking: Hey, Moaning Myrtle, there's this thing called the internet - you're using it right now, in fact - where you can get in touch with online writing groups and critiquing circles. Well, call me a paranoid android if you like, but I'm not super-chuffed with the idea of sending my unpublished work to a bunch of strangers, none of whom has had to sign a document promising not to steal or plagiarise my intellectual property.
This has led to a situation where I've had to become a self-reliant editor. I've had to develop some tricks and habits that have allowed me to revise my own work without overweening pride clouding my judgement.
In On Writing, Stephen King suggests leaving your manuscript in a drawer for six weeks before reading it over and creating a second draft. For me, this is nowhere near enough. I usually do an initial draft within a few weeks and then try to leave the story for anything up to six months. The clarity this brings is exhilarating - it's as though you're reading someone else's work and it becomes much easier to see what is fat and what is lean meat.
It hasn't hurt, either, that in my day job I have had to edit thousands (probably millions) of words of other people's work, to the point where I can almost hear when a sentence isn't balanced or needs some fine tuning. I've come to recognise my own failings and expect them, too; I have an awful first-draft habit of explaining the story to myself in the opening paragraphs, and in revision these paragraphs usually end up being thoroughly rewritten, pared back to nothing, or deleted altogether.
I also use too much metaphorical language. Oftentimes, I'll cut the total number of similies and metaphors in a story by half before I'm finished.
You see, because I had no other option, I was forced to become a ruthless editor. By the third draft, I have usually managed to kill every one of my darlings, even the one I was so delighted with in the heat of composition.
Having no writing circle or 'ideal readers' to give you feedback might be a bummer, but it's no excuse not to go on. In the end, claiming you can't write or get published because you're stuck in an ivory tower is just another bull-crud excuse, like "I can't find the time". If you're a writer, you'll find the time to write. And if you're a writer who wants to get published, you'll find a way to edit your stories properly.