Excuse my fangirly squee for a moment (*SQUEE!*) I am constantly referencing Emily, she's practically one of my avatars - love that woman. Loved Gilda (*sniffle*).
the discussion can turn into a sort of open beta as the author clarifies and defends their thesis
No worries on "restating" the idea, b/c repeating it actually pushes me to further clarify and parse out the idea in my head. You got me thinking about how we traditionally have an image of the "lonely writer" by themselves in their room with no feedback, nothing but the company of their pen/typewriter/computer and their own imagination to guide them; but this description seems to me a better fit to the process of writing meta than fiction, at least in fandom.
I guess I think of a beta vs "general reader" as analogous to a production crew member vs studio audience. Of course I'm thinking of more "formal" metas (essays) rather than off-the-cuff entries like this one. Fiction & non-fiction are treated like apples and oranges in terms of purpose and expected engagement, but in terms of the actual WRITING PROCESS, are they really so different from one another as that?
A beta helps determine if an author is communicating the story they actually think they are and how effectively before it's let loose on the unsuspecting world. So that includes the technical aspects and style, even if the beta is not a Grammer Cop: Do words/sentences/images follow one another naturally, is there a flow and logic, what's missing, is there too much description, etc?
with meta the discussion definitely pushes the author to clarify further, or deepens understanding of an issue, but the reader is engaging with primarily with the issues and ideas rather than they style. But I think the same issues apply in non-fiction writing: do the words and ideas have a logical flow? Too much verbiage? Not enough? Is the point of the meta in clear focus the entire time, or is the writer all over the place?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-07-28 04:25 pm (UTC)Excuse my fangirly squee for a moment (*SQUEE!*) I am constantly referencing Emily, she's practically one of my avatars - love that woman. Loved Gilda (*sniffle*).
the discussion can turn into a sort of open beta as the author clarifies and defends their thesis
No worries on "restating" the idea, b/c repeating it actually pushes me to further clarify and parse out the idea in my head. You got me thinking about how we traditionally have an image of the "lonely writer" by themselves in their room with no feedback, nothing but the company of their pen/typewriter/computer and their own imagination to guide them; but this description seems to me a better fit to the process of writing meta than fiction, at least in fandom.
I guess I think of a beta vs "general reader" as analogous to a production crew member vs studio audience. Of course I'm thinking of more "formal" metas (essays) rather than off-the-cuff entries like this one. Fiction & non-fiction are treated like apples and oranges in terms of purpose and expected engagement, but in terms of the actual WRITING PROCESS, are they really so different from one another as that?
A beta helps determine if an author is communicating the story they actually think they are and how effectively before it's let loose on the unsuspecting world. So that includes the technical aspects and style, even if the beta is not a Grammer Cop: Do words/sentences/images follow one another naturally, is there a flow and logic, what's missing, is there too much description, etc?
with meta the discussion definitely pushes the author to clarify further, or deepens understanding of an issue, but the reader is engaging with primarily with the issues and ideas rather than they style. But I think the same issues apply in non-fiction writing: do the words and ideas have a logical flow? Too much verbiage? Not enough? Is the point of the meta in clear focus the entire time, or is the writer all over the place?