Or what's a beta for? And, is there a beta in your meta?

[red_satin_doll]

ETA 08/02/13: comlodge just re-stated the point in the convo thread below that I was attempting to make re: beta-readers and meta and did so better and far more concisely than I could ever hope to. I bow to her awesomeness.

I just noticed one more empty "pending" slot in the Beta catagory at the Running With Scissors Awards,  which seems odd to me. Thousands of fandom writers (theoretically) = thousands of betas (theoretically) = unable to fill six slots? Granted a good beta is hard to find - or rather, a successful author-beta partnership based on complete trust and respect for the other person may just be harder to find than a good marriage. The author needs to be able to choose someone who can offer objective, constructive criticism, not flames or insults; who can judge the work based upon what the writer is trying to achieve in the piece and how much it fails or succeeds in that goal; and the beta needs to be someone who can offer  help but then detach themselves and always remember it is the author's story, not their own.

On the other side of the page, nothing is more frustrating as a beta (I speak from experience, of course) than dealing with an author who says they want feedback when what they really want is praise. And this is true of 99% percent of the writers I've dealt with, who say they want "feedback" when what they're really after is ego strokes. Of course every writer wants that, but when an author is entering a relationship with a beta partner they need to be clear as to what, exactly they are looking for: an editor? A cheerleader? A teacher or taskmaster? Someone to brainstorm with? Line by line analysis of plot, structure, etc? Hugs and puppies? I'm not a beta for any writers in this fandom currently but I'm a "Muse" for one of my closest friend's novels (we prefer the title "Muse" to "beta"), and I've always been more than willing to give the writers I've working with the feedback they need, if they are willing to listen to what I have to say. (Why ask a beta for their opinion if you don't want to actually hear it?)

One thing I noticed since I've been a part of this fandom: betas are considered essential to fanfiction, to the point that authors actually apologize for not having a beta; why is it then that "meta" (nonfiction writing) posts very rarely mention the feedback of a beta? The exceptions I've seen have tended to be the more intellectual or academic fan essays and analysis. The other day I asked someone to beta a fanfic I'm working on but it's never occured to me to request feedback on a nonfiction fan essay before posting it.  Is it custom? Habit? Lack of interest in nonfiction writing in relation to fiction?

(ETA paragraph breaks, hyperlinks, and screencap. Clearly, this post needed a beta of it's own.)

Comments

[rahirah]

That's a good question. Though in a way, when people comment on meta, especially if they disagree with it, the discussion can turn into a sort of open beta as the author clarifies and defends their thesis.... ETA: And Ruuger already said exactly that. Never mind! /Emily Litella

[red-satin-doll.livejournal.com]

Never mind! /Emily Litella


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?