Oh dear me yes.
I'm not a writer myself; but I really enjoy beta-reading, and I'm pretty good at it. And
absolutely yes -- there are a lot of times when I cringe before hitting the "Send" button.
Some random thoughts and observations:
---
Diplomacy and Perspective. I cut my critiquing teeth as a teen on Critters, and I still deeply appreciate
their diplomacy advice. That advice, and my experience on Critters in general, was hugely influential on how I approach critiquing.
Some of the observations are:
- Remember that you are
one reader, and different readers respond differently. Don't lean on abstract "rules" or absolutes; couch things as your opinion and your experience, and leave room for different tastes and opinions. Don't say "Do this" or "You need to fix that"; just using the word "Consider" gives your comments a whole different tone.
- What you have to offer isn't an "objective" assessment of any of the story's "inherent" qualities. It's
your own experience with the story -- how you responded; what you keyed onto; what your reading experience was
like. That's a huge help, because it lets you focus on your own reactions to the text -- and leaves
solving or fine-tuning that reading experience to the author, which is right where it belongs. (Going back to the astute observation that beta-readers are very good at pointing to problems, and often much less good at pointing to solutions...)
- Which doesn't mean you can't be scathing. If at some point your reaction is "OMG I would rather rip my eyeballs out now rather than turn the page", that's a pretty darn important reaction, and you
need to communicate it to the author -- albeit not necessarily in those words...
- Be open to different styles (or, be very selective about what you beta-read). If you don't like romance, there's still no call to write "AGGGH, another kissing scene" over and over in a romance subplot. That's irrelevant to the story's actual intended audience. You need to be versatile enough to be constructive even for material that's outside your own personal bailiwick -- or, you need to just limit yourself to what's firmly within your comfort zone.
There's a letter that Isaac Asimov once wrote Gene Roddenberry with some critique/suggestions for the original
Star Trek. It closes with what's become a go-to line for me:
The most important suggestion of all -- ignore this letter, unless it happens to make sense to you.
I think that helps make clear how to take a beta-read in context. And it emphasizes something very important: A beta reader can't be somebody "grading" your work. If a beta reader tells you "this is bad" but you can't understand
why they think it's bad, then that beta reader has done a poor job,
even if they're right.
---
A lot of authors seeking beta reads are new, and I feel like that's a lot of the reason it can be so uncomfortable. You feel like you're crushing somebody's hard work, hope, and dreams. AND, usually what I want people to take away from a critical beta read is not "boy do you suck at this". It's "listen, this is a lot of hard work, probably way more than you expected, but
you can do it" -- but that's hard to communicate,
particularly to somebody who isn't accustomed to criticism or even outside feedback yet.
Similarly,
you're often beta-reading for somebody you don't know, and that has much the same issues. You're not used to them, you don't know if they take criticism well, you don't know if the two of you are on the same wavelength. You don't know what comments might be pushing their buttons in ways you didn't intend. You definitely don't know if your "AGGH stab my eyeballs nowwww" comment is going to leave them writhing on the floor in laughter, or in a catatonic breakdown.
The situation is very, very different when you're critiquing for somebody you know and trust -- on both the personal and professional axes. Just knowing you don't need to explain basic terminology, or that the author is understanding of criticism and you don't need to qualify and soften every critical comment, makes critiquing much easier and smoother.
And, well, I've got a good friend I've done multiple crits for, and some of them I very much Did Not Like. With her, I'm able to joke around. I'm able to be loose and blunt and silly, without worrying I'm causing offense. Her most recent book, she gave me a copy, and signed it with the dedication "I hope you'll at least like the dedication!".
There was a marvelous moment on a panel at a local convention, when some authors were talking about beta reading and how they use them, where my friend mentioned, "Oh, yeah, I have one beta reader who's absolutely vicious, and that's exactly what I want him there for, because that's so helpful to me." And another panelist turned around and went, "Wait, who is this?", and my friend says, "Standback," and the other panelist goes, "What,
Standback?". Because... I've beta-read for the other panelist too. Much, much more gently. Because: different people; different relationships -- different styles of beta-reading.
---
And lastly, strongly agreeing with Harlequin here:
I think this is why I have to see samples, now.
If a book is going to be intolerable, the author doesn't
need an exhaustive list of every single way in which it's awful. And you, the beta-reader, certainly don't need that.
Again, I'm just a hobbyist here. But my general principal is:
don't beta-read something that won't be improved by the read. And when you reach a point where burrowing down further will do nothing but make the author feel worse and worse, you can just
stop.
Samples are a really great way to handle this. I've started doing something similar, with a slight difference: I tell the author I might stop partway in. I tell them that if I feel like continuing won't be useful, then I'll stop. So far people have been very understanding (although this is pretty recent, and I haven't actually needed to stop mid-way yet. OTOH I'm also getting pickier about taking new beta reads on...).
---
All these help a lot with the "what am I inflicting on this poor author" feeling of guilt.
...it's still there, though