meta: beta readers and how cruel they are

[escritoireazul]

jeddy83 writes about betas who rip the stories to shreds and why that doesn't work, and here was my response:

This idea is what makes me shy away from finding new betas when I enter a new fandom (and ultimately, what makes me take so long to write in any new fandom, no matter how long I've been reading in it); not your idea, but the "ripping to shreds" bit.

I love a good, solid beta, in both fanfic and non-fanfic writing. The betas I use, for the most part, I've used for years, because they are thorough, pointed, and tough. However, they also know how to present their opinions and changes so that nothing becomes an attack, which makes the advice that much more palatable.

Outside of fandom, I've been a professional editor for years. I know how important a good beta is, and how much every story needs at least one or two. And still, I can get touchy about the story, if the beta is needlessly harsh.

I think the point of a beta, of an editor, is not only to reveal the mistakes or changes that need to be made, but to encourage the writer, and to present everything in a way that the writer can understand what is right and wrong about the story. Unless the beta can get through to the writer, it's a wasted effort. The rip-the-story-to-shreds beta puts the writer on the defensive, so instead of really thinking about the comments, in my opinion, the writer immediately tries to defend them, and may miss ideas that would make excellent additions or changes.

So what do you all think about betas? How harsh are your betas? Do you even use betas? And, important to me, because I'm currently writing in new fandoms, and my betas are dragging their feet about joining them, too, how do you find new betas you can trust?