next_to_normal (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
next_to_normal) wrote2009-09-11 04:53 pm
next_to_normal) wrote2009-09-11 04:53 pm
Stuff I found on the interwebz
As an illustration of why you shouldn't ask professional writers to read your stuff, this is really only halfway relevant to fanfic, but there are just so many bits that I want to quote and say "Word!" Plus, it's just an interesting post: "I Will Not Read Your F**king Script." Relevant excerpts under the cut.
It rarely takes more than a page to recognize that you're in the presence of someone who can write, but it only takes a sentence to know you're dealing with someone who can't.This I have found to be very true.
And the truth is, saying something positive about this thing would be the nastiest, meanest and most dishonest thing I could do.I cringe every time I see truly awful fics get great reviews, for just this reason - it's completely misleading. Oh, maybe the person leaving the review honestly thinks it's great, but they're probably no more knowledgeable about writing than the author. It makes authors think they're better than they are, and makes them even more resistant to well-deserved criticism. And it just perpetuates the cycle of crap, because bad writers encourage each other to write more bad fic, instead of it being pointed out to them (gently) that they suck and are in painful need of a writing class. Of course, when you try to give them honest advice...
He was frustrated by the responses he'd gotten from friends, because he felt they were going easy on him, and he wanted real criticism. They never do, of course. What they want is a few tough notes to give the illusion of honesty, and then some pats on the head. What they want--always--is encouragement, even when they shouldn't get any.And that right there is why constructive criticism is poorly received 90% of the time. It's also probably why my betaing style pisses off so many new writers. ;)
The main point I made was that he'd fallen prey to a fallacy that nails a lot of first timers. He was way more interested in telling his one story than in being a writer. It was like buying all the parts to a car and starting to build it before learning the basics of auto mechanics. You'll learn a lot along the way, I said, but you'll never have a car that runs.If this doesn't describe at least half the beginning writers in fandom, I don't know what does.
no subject
(I have a couple of RL friends who have handed me stories and asked me to look over them. I responded with "Alright, but be warned - I'm going to be harsh, I'm going to be honest, and there's a fair chance I'll tell you it's total crap. Do you still want me to read it?" One did, one didn't.)
What is your betaing style, anyway?
no subject
I'm generally very comprehensive and totally honest. I've had people who really only wanted a proofreader for mechanical errors, and I've tried to respect that, but I find it really, really hard to ignore big, glaring plot holes or bad characterization or whatever. So usually I end up commenting on anything and everything, and I'll specify whether something's wrong and should be corrected, or if it's just my opinion of how something could be better.
With new writers, that sometimes means being painfully honest about how bad it is, but I always feel that a reality check is the best thing for them. If they're serious about writing, then they'll be eager to improve and willing to learn. If they think their writing is perfectly fine as is and just wanted a pat on the head, then I have nothing to offer them and we're just wasting each other's time.
I don't think I'm mean, though. :) I give encouragement where it's due - with someone like
no subject
Something that contributes to good betaing is if the betee is a self-aware writer. When they can pinpoint areas of weakness and verbalize where they need support, then it becomes a more active collaborative process than a passive "give me feedback and maybe I'll do something about it" process. I've always found that an active dialogue between an editor and writer produces stronger work. I found this especially true on the newspaper. When changes were made without my input or my knowledge, christ, it fucked everything up!
no subject
Very, very, very true. I think that's a big part of the problem I have with new writers, is that they're rarely self-aware. Not only can they not identify areas of weakness, but they don't even want to acknowledge that they have them when someone else points it out.
And good to know I'm not mean! :)
no subject
Comprehensive would definately describe E's style. I can't speak to her beta approach with new writers, but whenever we've worked together I've always relied on her for correcting mechanical errors, as well as offering her opinion about pacing, characterization, plot, etc. I regularly beta'd for her, as well, when we were both writing frequently, and something that worked well was liberally using the comment boxes in the margins of Word. You might want to check out this post she put up awhile back called Beta Thoughts (http://eowyn-315.livejournal.com/57005.html). I think our editing relationship worked because it was an open dialogue. The more you discuss, the more familiar you become with your writer's style and/or needs and it makes you a better beta, as a result.
no subject