I never tried to steer the plot, but I pointed out when something seemed out of context or if I couldn't picture an action sequence in my mind. We had a really good partnership while it lasted.
That's very much what I've done as a beta-reader for my friends; I let them know right up front I'm not about correcting grammar unless it's glaringly obvious even to me. But I look for the things you do - characterization, flow, readability, logical progression. I had a friend whose work I'd read and I'd ask every once in a while "How did this character get from point A to point B?" She'd say she saw it in her head, but as a reader I can't see what's in her head.
We all do that as writers, don't we? Is there such a thing as a writer who is able to reread their work and spot every error, or every place where they forgot to state something because they saw it in their head and assumed the reader would too?
comlodge just mentioned on another thread here the fact that they had a "beta" for one of their banners who spotted what was missing in the visual story. So not just writers - artists who tell a story regardless of the medium.
I don't know the exact definition of meta. (And I don't think I really enjoy it).
So you dislike all nonfiction writing about btvs (in this instance) and/or it's fandom? *pouts* That's the best definition I can come up with based on how I see the word used in this fandom. (Prior to joining fandom "meta" to me referred to a work of art or culture that is self-referential, that acknowledges itself as a created product, and acknowledges the existence of the audience.)
But in my limited knowledge, it seems like it would lose something if it was beta'ed. It seems like it needs to come unfiltered from the writer.
So you do have a definition of meta - a journal entry, an off-the-cuff or stream of consciousness observation. that's a very specific criteria. And it works fine IF that's the writer's style. It doesn't work if the author is going for something else. Meta can range from very informal and off-the-cuff to very academic and anything in between. And even the best nonfiction authors miss things and make errors just as fiction writers do.
Ex: I know with the Xander meta I wrote many months back, I cringe when I look at it now. Another eye looking it over would have been invaluable in shaping it. It never occured to me to ask anyone; now I wish I had. It's ok, but nothing I'm proud of.
no subject
That's very much what I've done as a beta-reader for my friends; I let them know right up front I'm not about correcting grammar unless it's glaringly obvious even to me. But I look for the things you do - characterization, flow, readability, logical progression. I had a friend whose work I'd read and I'd ask every once in a while "How did this character get from point A to point B?" She'd say she saw it in her head, but as a reader I can't see what's in her head.
We all do that as writers, don't we? Is there such a thing as a writer who is able to reread their work and spot every error, or every place where they forgot to state something because they saw it in their head and assumed the reader would too?
I don't know the exact definition of meta. (And I don't think I really enjoy it).
So you dislike all nonfiction writing about btvs (in this instance) and/or it's fandom? *pouts* That's the best definition I can come up with based on how I see the word used in this fandom. (Prior to joining fandom "meta" to me referred to a work of art or culture that is self-referential, that acknowledges itself as a created product, and acknowledges the existence of the audience.)
But in my limited knowledge, it seems like it would lose something if it was beta'ed. It seems like it needs to come unfiltered from the writer.
So you do have a definition of meta - a journal entry, an off-the-cuff or stream of consciousness observation. that's a very specific criteria. And it works fine IF that's the writer's style. It doesn't work if the author is going for something else. Meta can range from very informal and off-the-cuff to very academic and anything in between. And even the best nonfiction authors miss things and make errors just as fiction writers do.
Ex: I know with the Xander meta I wrote many months back, I cringe when I look at it now. Another eye looking it over would have been invaluable in shaping it. It never occured to me to ask anyone; now I wish I had. It's ok, but nothing I'm proud of.