What makes a good beta

[malenkayacherepakha]

We had an interesting conversation in one of my group chats today prompted by the question: do you think a bad writer can be a good beta?

The general consensus was yes, they can still be a valuable help, because beta'ing isn't just about checking the technical side of the writing, but also about making sure the plot works, that the pacing and characterisation are right etc, and if someone is a good reader they can check for those things. To me it's another good reason to have more than one beta - everyone has different strengths and can check your fic for different things, all of which are important for making a fic work.

I thought I'd throw that question out here too, to see what you all thought, and also tack on a follow up - what do you think are the important qualities a good beta needs?

Comments

[magpie_fngrl]

What a coincidence, I was thinking about betaing these days!

I'd say, it depends what we mean "bad" writer. Someone whose stories show no understanding of structure or progression, are full of exposition (v common in fandom), and who writes on-the-nose dialogue can't beta competently, although they could offer decent SPaG.

The way I'd phrase it is that they don't need to be a writer. Being a good reader, like you said, suffices.

In the publishing world, there are three types of editing: one is called developmental editing (I'm hoping to try freelance work in that field) and it deals with pacing, characterisation, structure, the big picture. This edit doesn't look at the prose, for instance. Its job to check the foundations, the skeleton. Then, line editing: deals (iirc) with sentences, consistency (if the author says it's raining, they can't say the sunlight was lovely two paragraphs down) and so on. The final stage is copy-editing, which is SPaG.

That's not beta-reading. My understanding is that a beta reader is simply a person who comes at a late stage, simply to give the opinion on the book. Like an early reviewer, or like big film franchises using test audiences before they finalise a film.

So in our fandom world, we say 'beta' and we mean all four. That's a lot of work for one person, and no wonder there's a lack of clarity as to what they do. From what I've seen in fanfic it's rare to receive development edits. Then again, not all fics need it. An 8k fic doesn't need more than SPaG usually. Most of the time we need a second pair of eyes to catch anything we haven't explained too well or explained too much.

Having more than one beta is imperative, I think. Mainly for longer works. If one person tells you they didn't like something, perhaps it's a preference of theirs, rather than an actual mistake on your part. It pays to have more than one person read your stuff to see if they all highlight an issue, for instance. Like you said, they also have different strentgths.

As for a good beta/editor/critique partner, ideally:
--they provide encouragement as well as critique. You need to know what works as well as what doesn't.
--they are specific ("this word doesn't work/this sentence confused me/I laughed/cried at this part/wow this line is hot").
--they have a decent understanding of grammar, writing, storytelling.
--they are avid readers, esp in your genre
--they give suggestions ("I'm not sure he'd notice this from where he's standing") instead of rewriting your sentences. It's not only *what* one says, but also *how* they say it.
--they are able and willing to comment on the plot, pacing and other stuff as well as the technical aspects, if of course this is something the author requires.
--this is something that occurred to me now, but it's really helpful if they like your work, or broadly the genre you write in. If someone who reads only fluff volunteers to beta a super angsty fic, will they be able to make comments that help the author? Because the correct suggestion might be: "make it hurt more", something that this beta might not even consider.

I found a post I made about it on tumblr a long time ago; I'd received an ask. Here's the link: https://magpiefngrl.tumblr.com/post/182314837627/hello-magpie-i-hope-this-is-okay-youre-my

[magpie_fngrl]

What I'd like to add is that betas in fanfic are the same as authors: doing this for fun. Fanfic authors want their story to be fun and exciting and as good as they can make it, but I wonder how many of them would shred the whole thing and start again if a beta suggested that they need to completely restructure the plot.

Writing with a view to publish professionally is different. It's... I see it as competitive writing if that makes sense. I'd shared a chapter with my writing group and, based on their feedback, went and rewrote the first half entirely. Would many fic authors do the same when they have a completed story they've worked on for weeks? In that case, if I were to beta such a fic, I might suggest ways to make the scene stronger, even if it's a complete dud, instead of suggesting they rewrite it (unless the author was up for it). With original, the suggestions don't involve only making a chapter stronger. It has to stand out, it has to hold the agent's attention past the first page, it has to progress X Y Z etc. So if I need to rewrite it 5 times, I will.

(OK I'm more or less the same in fic, but I don't know how many other people are like that)

This is also to say that a lot of my thoughts at the moment revolve around a different field than fandom so they're bound to be different to what you're asking.

[malenkayacherepakha]

This is a good point and one that's very interesting to consider - I've definitely felt before that I can't be as, idk, harsh? while betaing as I could be because it doesn't feel appropriate for fanfic that someone is writing for fun. I can imagine some writers would be totally okay with it, but I expect the majority would be seriously unimpressed (which is fine!)

It's interesting to see how the topic is different in different fields, it gives an interesting outside perspective!

[gracerene]

Ooo, that is such a great and succinct list of what you like in a beta! I am in complete agreement, no surprise. :D And, also very much agree on having multiple betas to get different POVs and strengths. I've definitely had betas give me feedback that I instinctively didn't agree with, but then was able to run by my other beta to get their thoughts and see if I needed a step back to get perspective on the story, or if it maybe really was just one particular beta's person feelings. I try and be aware of that in my own betaing, and will often make notes letting the person know that my comments on particular parts might be motivated by personal preference and that they should take it with a grain of salt.

[magpie_fngrl]

Same here, I often preface suggestions with "could be my own preference but perhaps you can consider doing X".

[pauraque]

This is a great rundown of the issues at play with this! I've recently been thinking about it too. The vagueness/multifacetedness of the beta role is why I think it's important to discuss with a beta what, exactly, you want them to do. I've worked with betas where we actually did developmental editing, and it really helped me improve on a deeper level than just making my prose better. (One of the most important questions a beta ever asked me was "What do you want a reader to take away from this fic?") But not everyone knows how to work on a story on all possible levels, from big-picture conceptual stuff, to structure, to individual word choices.

Writing isn't just one skill, but rather a suite of interconnected skills, and the same goes for critical reading.

[malenkayacherepakha]

It's *such* a vague role! and I think a lot of newbie betas don't quite know what's expected of them beyond spag. It's definitely important to have that conversation about expectations, and I've personally making a point to proactively say what I want from my betas, and also ask writers what they want when I'm betaing for them.

I'd love to do some more developmental editing with my betas but it's essential to get the right people for that.

Your final sentence is such a perfect way of summing it all up.

[malenkayacherepakha]

I read a really interesting post the other day on tumblr I think about the different things that being a beta means, and it said pretty much the same as you have here. It's a lot of work to do all of those things, and some are much easier than others!

Your list of things a beta should do is so helpful, thank you! Both in terms of clarifying what I want from my betas, but also in helping me be a better beta for other people.

Your tumblr post is brilliant too, and definitely something I would have found helpful in my early days of betaing (and it's still helpful now!) I love the idea of celebrating our betas somehow - I once wrote a fest fic for a prompt left by someone who'd beta'd a lot for me (not sure they ever read it but oh well, it's the thought that counts!)

[gracerene]

I agree with basically everything Magpie said.

I definitely don't think one needs to be a writer in order to be a good beta, but I don't know that I necessarily think a "bad" writer would make a good beta--for me, at least, I'd flat-out never entrust my work to be beta'd by somebody I considered a bad writer. Of course, if definitely depends on what you mean by beta (as Magpie mentioned, we tend to use it in fandom as a catch-all terms for a lot of different things) and what you mean by bad. Somebody might be a terrible storyteller/bad at pacing/characterizations etc., but could have excellent technical skills, which could make them good for SpaG/copy edits beta, but not much for the heavy lifting of beta work. I don't think betaing and writing are necessarily the same skill set (I agree that being a good reader alone and not a writer at all can definitely suffice), but I would find it strange if somebody was writing and doing it poorly, but then was able to turnaround and offer me really excellent and in-depth beta advice. While the lack of distance from your own writing might impede some natural beta skills, some of that should shine through to the point where I wouldn't consider them a "bad" writer, if that makes sense?

[malenkayacherepakha]

I completely agree on not trusting a bad writer to be a good beta - unless I had proof that they were a good beta (maybe if a writer I trusted recommended them or something). It's definitely part of what's made me be more cautious about where I ask for my betas.

That's true, I suppose I maybe took 'bad writer' to mean someone who *doesn't* write, but if they do write and clearly think their writing is good and yet I don't agree, maybe then I would have more doubts about their betaing ability.