How harsh do you prefer your beta readers to be?

I can't handle the truth!

Seun: I want honesty.

Click to expand...

Not just want, it's a requirement. Add to that intelligence, insight, and excellent writing skills. Wisdom. Ability to cut through the crap. Fearlessness. A sense of humor is nice but I can live without it. Patience as I try to wrap my sometimes dense head around what the hell they're telling me. . .

Tell you what--I've been really f-ing lucky.

Yes, you do have to be careful with some people, who, even when they say that they can handle criticism, really can't. For that reason, I always tend to tread lightly when I see certain red flags.

I personally like harsh criticism though. My take on it is why wouldn't you want all of the flaws in your work to be pointed out? Why wouldn't you want an honest opinion to make it better? As long as it's constructive, I see no problem with it.

But, like I said, some people get very attached to their work and you just have to let them figure it out on their own unfortunately, and help them where you can.

cmi0616 said:

I personally like harsh criticism though. My take on it is why wouldn't you want all of the flaws in your work to be pointed out? Why wouldn't you want an honest opinion to make it better? As long as it's constructive, I see no problem with it.

Click to expand...

Why is it that honest opinions/criticisms have to be harsh? Why is that a requirement?

For myself, I'm not asking someone to walk on eggshells around me but it's really not necessary to be an asshole when telling me the truth. And for me being harsh can in many case equate to being an asshole.

Now that definition doesn't bear out for other people and that's fine. It's a pretty good argument to make sure author and beta are on the same page with expectations before deciding to work together.

I just think it's not productive to indicate that if it's not said harshly then it wasn't offered honestly.

bearilou said:

Why is it that honest opinions/criticisms have to be harsh? Why is that a requirement?

For myself, I'm not asking someone to walk on eggshells around me but it's really not necessary to be an asshole when telling me the truth. And for me being harsh can in many case equate to being an asshole.

Click to expand...

If I get a non-writer who's an asshole, I can forgive that. I won't pay much attention to them in the future, but I can forgive them. Now, I get a writer like that, and forget it. Words and phrasing are our world, for heaven's sake! Surely we can figure out how to be honest and constructive without being assholes about it.

Unimportant said:

I think it may vary depending on the author's level of experience on the receiving-critiques continuum.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd agree with that and also say it comes down to the familiarity with the beta.

The beta I tap heavily when I'm writing is someone who can use that sort of shorthand with me and I'm okay with it. But I know her (have known her for many, many years) and trust her. She's honest, she can give me some real zingers and the shorthand we have worked out get the points across far more effectively allowing us to get more done in a quicker time. If someone were to listen in from the outside and not know, they'd think she was being unusually cruel, mocking and snide. She's not. She knows my weakpoints and she stabs them with her red pen and says the pet phrase that she and I both know will tell me exactly her problem with it without wasting words and time.

bearilou said:

Yeah, I'd agree with that and also say it comes down to the familiarity with the beta.

Click to expand...

Definitely. With newer people, it's "That's not really clear. Do you mean...?" With my beta group, it's "WTF???" - well, close. But we've been doing this a while

I don't believe in beta readers. Never have. I've seen far more writers harmed by beta readers than I've ever seen helped. The only thing a beta reader does is make your writing conform to his opinion, and his opinion is meaningless. Beta readers ay it should be done this way or that way, and almost always because they've read it should be done this way or that way. Beta read manuscripts are just copycats of each other.

The only beta readers who have a clue are agents and editors.

If beta readers meant a tinker's damn, slush piles wouldn't be filled with junk that stands no chance of selling anywhere.

Jamesaritchie said:

The only thing a beta reader does is make your writing conform to his opinion, and his opinion is meaningless.

Click to expand...

How can a beta force an author to conform to the beta's opinion? What, they're holding a gun to the author's head via the internet? If an author is so wishy-washy they're going to do exactly what the beta tells them, they aren't ready to publish anyway. They'd probably follow every hair-brained suggestion an editor made as well - and you know editors aren't perfect either.

shadowwalker said:

How can a beta force an author to conform to the beta's opinion? What, they're holding a gun to the author's head via the internet? If an author is so wishy-washy they're going to do exactly what the beta tells them, they aren't ready to publish anyway. They'd probably follow every hair-brained suggestion an editor made as well - and you know editors aren't perfect either.

Click to expand...

It's clear James has had bad experiences with beta readers before since he is making these claims as to what they do and don't do for a manuscript and is able to make such sweeping generalized statements about all of them and the statement indicating that much in the slush pile wouldn't be there if they had ditched their beta.

My experience in working with betas and how I've seen them point out much of my own problematic writing habits and where my muddy prose could be clearer is of no consequence.

shadowwalker said:

If an author is so wishy-washy they're going to do exactly what the beta tells them, they aren't ready to publish anyway.

Click to expand...

I don't consider myself wishy-washy. I do however, lack self-esteem and confidence and figure everyone else has more knowledge about the writing game then I do. Which is why I stopped using beta readers. The story would always end up being the one they want to tell, not mine.

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't believe in beta readers.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, James. They believe in you.

Anninyn said:

Be honest, but be polite about it.

By which I mean no "This is crap" more "This doesn't work because".

Also, I have a fragile ego that needs careful handling, so tell me what works as well, please.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Harsh (to me) is "Boy, this is shit here, this is crap here, you sucked here...." It's not critiquing, it's just some dude/dudette with red-pen syndrome who probably had some trauma in an English class back in gradeschool and wants you to feel that pain too.

Good critiquing is honest and functional ("This doesn't work because...."). The best critique I get is thoughtful, tactful, honest critique and I'd never consider it "harsh." Could be I have thicker skin on that front, I don't know.

People who think that in order to be good at critiquing you have to be "harsh," well, I don't buy that.

I want to know what's wrong with my story, and I don't want the beta to dance around it in order to avoid hurting my feelings.

With that said, I do like a beta to be polite. There's a world of difference between, "I found X to be completely ridiculous. The whole scenario was really stupid." and "I found it hard to reconcile X with what we've seen so far in character Y's actions for these reasons..."

One is helpful, the other really isn't. (And yes, I've gotten betas which have pretty much been like, "Well, the story was boring." or "I thought that the idea was stupid." Which aren't just depressing, they're really not helpful, either. Why was it boring? Why as it stupid?)

bearilou said:

It's clear James has had bad experiences with beta readers before since he is making these claims as to what they do and don't do for a manuscript and is able to make such sweeping generalized statements about all of them and the statement indicating that much in the slush pile wouldn't be there if they had ditched their beta.

My experience in working with betas and how I've seen them point out much of my own problematic writing habits and where my muddy prose could be clearer is of no consequence.

Click to expand...

maybe he'll return to the thread to elaborate. after all, i'm certain he isn't just lobbing one-offs and drive-by posts to do a bit of bomb-throwing......

regarding the asshole thing, different people can handle more or less. On top of that, different people NEED more or less. Some folks just will not change something if you give them any wiggle room, or even just a neutral complaint; they need the slap. Some people will never return if they GET the slap. It is a big world, and there's room for both types, as well as for critiquers who are harsh, and those who are not. I try to avoid folks who say "be gentle" for that very reason.

The problem arises when someone claims they can take it (and to be fair, they probably believe they can) and then gets a hard critique and finds out otherwise. Or when someone plainly says they cannot handle "harsh" and someone else stomps all over them anyway. Both of those are at best misaligned expectations, and at worst, outright prickery. But a harsh crit is not automatically "asshole with poor english skills," as suggested upthread.

as for the original question, I prefer harsh--I'm thick-skinned, and stubborn as hell, so I need it....and it makes me dig in and decide to beat the crit. But that certainly isn't universal.

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't believe in beta readers. Never have. I've seen far more writers harmed by beta readers than I've ever seen helped. The only thing a beta reader does is make your writing conform to his opinion, and his opinion is meaningless. Beta readers ay it should be done this way or that way, and almost always because they've read it should be done this way or that way. Beta read manuscripts are just copycats of each other.

The only beta readers who have a clue are agents and editors.

If beta readers meant a tinker's damn, slush piles wouldn't be filled with junk that stands no chance of selling anywhere.

Click to expand...

At least credit authors with enough intelligence to determine whether a beta's comments are of use or not.

Ah, never mind, this is one of your fly-by 'tablets of stone' pronouncements, isn't it?

It's perfectly possible for a beta reader to be harsh and polite at the same time. Sometimes xe can just think the whole story doesn't work.

There's "This concept/ history doesn't work for me because (politely put reasons)..." which is harsh, and there's "You will never be a writer with a story like this." or "This whole thing made my eyes bleed (cue to explanation and bashing of the whole work in the most unflattering terms possible)."

Being polite about your opinion, whatever it might be, should be mandatory, me thinks. This doesn't need to mean making one's opinion "softer", in my opinion.

"Your work need some serious revising, and your grammar needs retouching" =/= "Your work sucks and by your grammar, I could tell you've never been to school".

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.

Click to expand...

And the funny thing is, they could be using EXACTLY THE SAME words, but to two different writers. IME, most of the reactivity to feedback is due to the writer, not the critiquer.

I'm not talking about "feedback" along the lines of "this is a mess and you should just give up writing anything more than a birthday greeting for the rest of your life." I would really hope that anyone writing who runs into that kind of critique from a beta would have the minimum self esteem necessary to snort and ignore the stupid.

But I don't see why betas should be expected to sugarcoat perfectly legitimate feedback. The writer may find it easier to tolerate being told that the character descriptions "could be shorter, perhaps a bit more original and also leave more to the imagination of the reader, because that allows the reader to interact more and to form their own bond with the character." But the beta doesn't necessarily have the time or the patience for that kind of handholding. There's nothing harsh or cruel about a marginal note that says "Char. descriptions wordy and cliched. Consider shortening.Consider substitutes for underlined similes."

As for adding "in my opinion" to comments, I assume the writer knows it's my opinion. If it helps, I'd write "all my comments are just my opinion" across the top of the manuscript, and "only use my comments if useful, ignore if they aren't" across the bottom, but most of my beta-writers already know that.

Bottom line for me is that writers who ask for beta reader feedback need some thickness of skin from the get-go. A beta who is reading for the right reason (constructive feedback) is not attacking the writer, even if the feedback is blunt and to the point.

I don't understand how "polite" became "sugar-coating". And since when does an ignored suggestion entitle the beta to hand out a 'slap'? If the author chooses not to take advice, what gives the beta the right to get nasty about it? They don't take it, they don't take it. Don't work with them any more then.

Good grief.

I've never had a beta reader... not sure where to get one... But, I've seen some people post paragraphs out of their manuscripts on here. Paragraphs that (in my humble opinion) were really good. I wanted to keep reading and find out where the story was going. But everyone else on the forum picked it apart. They focused on the fact that something was grammatically incorrect, or said they didn't understand what was going on (of course not!! It's one paragraph out of a thousand!) and tore the writing to shreds until there was nothing left but five or six words.

I had that happen to me when I was a kid. I sent a poem to a magazine, and they published it. I remember glowing because MY poem was in a magazine, but when I read it. I was hurt and upset. MY poem rhymed, MY poem had meaning, MY poem made sense. The editor had taken away the rhyming words, put in punctuation that was grammatically correct but took away from the flow and rhythm of the words, and altered the meaning to what they thought it should be... they had butchered the art to make it shiny. In my eyes (as a six year old boy,) it was like someone taking paint thinner to a Picasso because his lines weren't straight!

I have no experience in this department personally, but I don't think that a beta reader's job would be to LOOK for something to be wrong. I think they should FIND what is wrong. Because if you are looking for something to be amiss, you're totally going to create issues out of nothing. If there is something genuinely wrong then point it out, (not in a derogatory "you're a moron for not catching this" kind of a way,) but don't be afraid to show the person something that is potentially detrimental to their work...

Thank you for reading the rant of an inexperienced writer...

I don't understand how "polite" became "sugar-coating".

Click to expand...

The definition of "polite" seems to vary depending on the person using the word. When I use "sugarcoat," I am addressing the writers who seem to mean that the polite beta reader will say everything in as tactful and gentle a way as possible, lest the hurt feelings of the writer get in the way of their ability to receive the useful feedback. There are just so many hours in a day, yanno?

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't believe in beta readers. Never have. I've seen far more writers harmed by beta readers than I've ever seen helped. The only thing a beta reader does is make your writing conform to his opinion, and his opinion is meaningless. Beta readers ay it should be done this way or that way, and almost always because they've read it should be done this way or that way. .

Click to expand...

Oh, James... That's not what my beta reader does, and that's not what I do either.

Regarding the OP, I like to be beta-read the way I beta-read. Harsh doesn't come into it, and nor does sugar-coating. I just say what works well for me and when something doesn't work I explain what I'm having difficulties with, and if there are little things, typos or missed words, I'll point them out, too.

I've been really, really lucky with the people I've read for; I've read some brilliant stuff, and I think only one has ever responded surprisingly. It helps, I think, that I seek out people to beta for, rather than the other way around.

ETA: Of course, sometimes I have to beg a bit, but it's worth it...

firedrake said:

At least credit authors with enough intelligence to determine whether a beta's comments are of use or not.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's intelligence so much as confidence and experience.