FYI I edited this post to add a link to your reply because you said what I was trying to but a lot better and with fewer words. & I was hoping you'd stop btw here especially after our convo yesterday re: having someone spotcheck artwork because it's the same idea.

In short, I humbly bow to your way with words, my Queen. And true to form I respond with - a lot more words.

I'd never come across the term 'beta' til I came here.

Neither had I. I'd not come across the term meta in this context either - I guess it's meant to me "all nonfiction fanwriting"? Which could include stream of consciousness or off the cuff observations, very academic analysis, fangirl (or boy) squee, even fiction or artwork (I mentioned Lostboy's "Monomythology of Buffy" as an example. But I guess some of your own artwork could be included, making ties between Anne Pratt and Dawn/Buffy for example.)

Previously "meta" meant to me any cultural product (art, media) that is self-referential, that acknowledges the fact that the product is just that, a created product made for an audience and acknowledging the audience's existence. Or a particular example of winking at the audience. ("Dawn's in trouble, must be Tuesday" is a reference to the day of the week Btvs aired at the time. Or callbacks to "Nightmares" in Restless and Bargaining, etc.) I'm pretty sure that's the basic definition in literary and media studies? It's considered very "post-modern" but writers and artists throughout history have done that, inserted themselves as narrators/characters and spoken directly to the audience; put self-portraits into landscapes, devotional pieces commissioned by a church or portraits of patrons, etc, recognized only by those "in the know". We tend to think of it as modern I think because nowadays it's done by pretty much everyone.

In any case I dislike both the terms "Beta" and "meta" in this context. They seem a bit cold and clinical to me and meta seems vague to me, but they're what's used in these parts. When in Rome...bitch about the train schedules and the feral cats. (*lol*)

Here I assume the word is used instead of editor. Editors are, apparently the bane of writers.

Mostly writers who think their every word is precious I should think - or perhaps in response to tactless and egotistical editors? I'd imagine there's a difference between those who are paid to do it and have a boss and a market to answer to, vs those who do it for love.

But a beta could also perform the task of pointing to a more structured, cohesive plot, pick up charachter portrayals/developments that are incongruous with preceding parts of the stories and or canon charachter traits, time lapses that aren't explained, suggest the correct genre, etc....I'm sure we've all read a story or a meta, loved the basic plot, or idea but the grammar and or spelling mistakes drives us batty and sometimes drive us away.

EXACTLY THIS. The basics of writing are the same regardless of style, genre, etc.

I think as a beta it's really my job to offer to the writer what they want from me, and in return let them know my limits, what I can't do (I'm good at characterization and the flow and logic of the story, of tonal shifts etc), and when I really don't feel I have anything to offer for whatever reason. (horrible at grammar or maybe it's not a genre or story that speaks to me.)

And I have to remember that it is not my story. Mutual respect, communication and clear expectations/boundaries are essential.

A good working relationship between a beta and a writer, or in RL an editor and a writer, should produce a story fiction or non fiction that will have the readers come back for more.

And that's ALWAYS the bottom line, both in an individual work and in terms of the creator's total output.