How harsh do you prefer your beta readers to be?

The meaner the better for me.

However, I think it's all about tact. Personally, I can take whatever criticism you can throw at me as long as it's constructive.

I've seen some of the reactions from people in the SYW section and it seems as if they are delusional and think their work is perfect. So they post it expecting praise and get defensive when they receive critiques instead.

No work will ever be perfect! And if you can't take criticism from a Beta, how are you ever going to handle it from an editor, publisher, or just the hoards of people who write reviews online?!?!?!

I want the truth, but it can be presented in such a manner that it isn't rude.

I've had both courteous and rude. I don't use rude betas again.

I don't believe people can be "harsh" unless they are personally out to get you.

I want beta's who are like dogs. You send them out into your world and they return with all the nasty sh*t. But you can't blame them. All they did was observe, collect and bring back what they found. Kinda like scientists.

If there is a problem, they bring it up, no matter how much it'll hurt. Why? It's not their problem or their fault: It's your fault and your problem. All the beta's did, was find it.

Harshly: Blame yourself, because the dog did it.


But at the end of the day, you sit back and say, "I was an idiot. I'll own up to my mistakes." And then you get back on your feet and start running again. In the end, you've learned something and that's what counts.

I'm not quite sure how to gauge harshness, since the author's perception pretty much determines what "harsh" is. A relatively innocuous comment about a minor issue can be taken as a big stabby insult (I seen it happen), and a comment that questions whether or not the entire manuscript is totally screwed can be taken in perfectly good stride (seen that happen as well)...I think the only really "harsh" criticism is one that's needlessly insulting (which I almost never see). And then that's just rude and unnecessary.

Of course, I really like it when the critique is so masterfully tactful that it points out the problems without making me feel like an idiot, but that is a phenomenal feat to pull off, and it's not really necessary. I also like it when it's snarky and funny, but that's also unnecessary.The important things are honesty and respect on both ends. If you've got those, I think, you're good. There's a lot to be said for tact and politeness, but the paramount thing is the truth, or the closest approximation you can manage.

Your word choices are interesting. Cruel, harsh, ruthless. I think we all should be totally honest in our critiques, we should be thorough, and we shouldn't sugarcoat our comments. But cruel? Harsh? Ruthless? Two reviewers could point out the exact same issues in a writing sample, but one could do so by being cruel, harsh, and ruthless, while the other could do so by being honest, thorough, and forthright. I know I can handle either one, but if I'm asked to beta, I'll do my best to use the latter approach.

With some new writers, however, honest, thorough, and forthright will be taken as cruel, harsh, and ruthless. These people are simply not mature enough to have their work critted at ths level. I know because I was there when I first started writing fiction.

Unimportant said:

I'm a scientist, and I'm trying to figure out whether or not I should feel insulted by being described as a dog who goes out and brings back the shit she finds....

Click to expand...

Maybe I should switch the analogies? Dogs just have a colorful appearance.

No body wants a man in a white coat to bring shi*t to them.

But a dog, you might not care as much.

I want my betas to be bitter and unforgiving. My betas get it after it's already been through a crit group. I'm getting ready to say "I think this is worth paying for." So I'd rather get a message from my betas that says "This is a turd, and you forgot to flush" than "this is a candy coated turd - shit on the inside but so sweet we love it."

Thus far I have a good group, and they've railed viciously against places where I failed to keep characters consistent, gaping plot holes I somehow developed plot hole sized blinders to, and my constant attempts to invent new rules of grammar just so that I can violate them.

Mean betas are good betas.

I prefer betas that are blatant. If something doesn't seem right or is just plain bizarre, just say it. There's no room for sugar-coating when your trying to produce the best written product possible.

I want people to give me critique in a polite, professional tone, with pointing out what's good as well as what isn't. I can't take people being mean, or snarky, or anything that could even be interpreted as that.

I freely admit that I'm VERY weird about critique, though. Use the right tone, and I won't get mad over being told an entire concept is hopelessly flawed. Use the wrong tone, though, and I'll hate you forever for telling me to cut two sentences.

For obvious reasons, I generally ask specific people whose tones I like for critique, and don't post much in SYW. I don't know why I'm so weird about it, though, but I think it relates to my serious issues with depression. Also, I'm like this with EVERYTHING, not just writing. Certain people's tones in speaking make me want to strangle them with my bare hands, while other people can insult me and I laugh.

Chasing is right: tone is everything.

My feelings normally aren't hurt if an elephant steps on them, but just the right tone at just the right time - doesn't matter if the offending party is offering to buy ice cream - I just never want to see that person again.

Oh good, now I feel slightly less insane.

Hard, yes. Harsh, no.

I once had a beta by someone who I later found took pride in being as rude and snarky as possible. It was demeaning and disrespectful, and in the end I couldn't use any of the notes she gave me because they weren't constructive, they were just criticism. I want to see any problems my readers see, but I want them to be pointed out in such a way that I understand why it's an issue and can see how to fix it.

People I read know they can expect me to hit them hard, but they also know I'm going to show them why I made the notes. If i haven't helped them make the scene better, I've wasted time for both if us.

I'm a professional. I want my work to be as polished as possible. I read for other professionals and assume they want the same. If you're looking for coddling, head-pats and cheerleading, let your mom read it, don't give it to me.

I'm not sure you should feel less insane; I'm beginning to think I'm totally nuts.

As others have said, I think its a matter of being honest, not of being harsh. Honesty can seem harsh when it makes the writer realize all the revising he must do, but its meant to help and improve the writing.

When I give critiques, I have gotten used to phrasing my critiques with plenty of "I think" and "to me" and "in my opinion," constantly reminding the writer that he's the one in charge of his own work; I'm not commanding him to do anything. I'm still honest, but I would never say something like, "It's really dumb how you digress into this pointless subplot -- take it out." Rather, I'd say, "I'm not sure I understand why the story digresses into this subplot. Is it needed? I'd consider cutting it."

As I writer, I search for honest and constructive feedback. I of course don't prefer demeaning tones, but I can weed through them if I have to if they have something constructive to offer, and if they don't, I will probably just laugh at them.

Chasing the Horizon said:

I want people to give me critique in a polite, professional tone,

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I want honesty. It's up to me if I take it as harsh or brutal or whatever you want to call it. However it comes, I want it to be honest. After all, I'm working to improve my work and that's not going to happen unless a reader is honest and tells me where I've screwed up.

If you were sitting in front of me while I was critting I would say exactly the same thing as I've written.

Only difference is, instead of remembering to pop in the odd smiley, I would be able to offer you a cup of tea and a biccy and gesture and poke you in the ribs or speak softly or loudly or wink and smile or laugh or shrug - and if you felt that was harsh, so be it.