Getting sufficient and necessary feedback from beta readers and mentors

In a nutshell, you don't know. It's your job as the author to filter feedback, evaluate it, and decide what to do.

When I first shared my writing with other people I was a nervous wreck with imposter syndrome who considered EVERYBODY more knowledgeable than me. I acted on all feedback, doing exactly what was suggested. That lasted until I got my first piece of contradictory feedback: one reader loved X, another reader hated it. What was I supposed to do?!

That's when I learned that feedback is a tool for you to use, not an instruction list. It's the same when you're published - your editor will tell you what she thinks and leave it up to you to make the changes however you wish, or to say why you think a certain element shouldn't be changed. If an editor's word isn't law, then a beta reader's sure isn't.

How do you decide which feedback to listen to and which to discard? There's no objective answer, unfortunately. For me it came with experience, as well as growing confidence. I put feedback into three groups:

1. Instantly think, "YES, of course, why didn't I think of that?" - I make these changes.
2. Think, "Hm. That's interesting. I'm not sure." - I think about the comment more before acting. Often it ends with me realising the criticsm is correct but the reader's suggested fix isn't.
3. "Was this person reading a different manuscript?!" - I look at the page/passage in question to see if it can be made clearer. If it's clear, I put this down to a reader quirk or a reader who doesn't know the genre or a reader with a weird hang-up, and ignore it.

I would advise you look for readers who aren't friends or family, and therefore won't be biased towards you or uncomfortable giving any criticsm. I personally would never pay for critique and, from what I've seen writer friends go through, this is rarely worth the money. Find people who read a lot. Find people who like your genre. If someone gives you feedback that helps make the manuscript better, keep their details and ask if they will read your next project, too.

I started out getting all the beta readers I could. By my third manuscript I only needed to send it to three people, because I know they will tell me everything I need to know before sending the manuscript to my agent.

Honestly? You need to develop your own sense of when your work is and isn't good. Critique is useful, but revision by committee just doesn't work. (And I'd suggest never paying anyone who isn't a professional editor with a track record, and even then, remember they're not there to fix your book, just point out what might need work.)

The way to do this is to iterate. Write a book. Get some critiques. Decide what parts of those critiques you agree with (because it's subjective), and revise. Send out again. When you're satisfied it's as good as you can make it, query (if you're going trade), or publish (if you're going your own way).

Then write the next one. It doesn't matter if the current MS takes off or not; the answer is always to write the next one and do it all over again. Feedback is useful, but the only way to improve as a writer is to actually write.

I think you're expecting way too much of your betas, by the way. Nobody gets 100% of the issues ever, even the pros. And there are plenty of issues folks notice that they don't feel are important enough to mention, even if they drive you crazy once you see them.

Also, published authors aren't automatically better at crit than anyone else. Critting well is a talent, and not everybody has it.

But fundamentally you need to cultivate your own inner critic. Even if you publish with a Big 5, you'll still be surrounded by people telling you that you suck. The only choice is to keep writing and develop your craft to your own satisfaction, or hang it up. And there are days we all want to hang it up.

What they said, with the coda that, in general, friends and family are out. There are rare situations with people whose friends/family members are professionals in this realm, and with whom the relationship is such that it can work, but in a general sense people who know you don't want to hurt your feelings and will go out of their way, even subconsciously, to focus on positives.

How much do you read? How much have you generally read? Reading endlessly is the best way to learn how to write.

Heya!

You probably have all the feedback you need, which is very good feedback and fits my experience too.

I want to second the idea of reading books you enjoy and ask yourself why you enjoy them. Or books you don't enjoy but others do.

I picked up a Le Guin book in the Hainish series again last night. I have difficulty reading her Hainish cycle prose (although I loved her young adult coming of age novella; different style). I know this book is 'good' but I don't enjoy it. It's an effort for me to read, like she is trying to transport me on a magic carpet and I'd rather be on the back of a motorcycle, hanging onto my best friend (solar powered motorcycle, of course.) But it's useful, anyway, to read her Hainish stuff (this is just for an example), to stretch my understanding of how words can work.

More thoughts--it can help to print out your book and read hard copy. Read it out loud. Set it aside for two months and then read it fresh. there's lots of tricks to see your words in new ways.

I've had sixteen beta readers. I'm unlike the other people here in that I think friends and family are fine to lean on. They know me, and when something doesn't work they know what it is I'm trying to get at--which a stranger doesn't. I definitely needed strangers to read my work as well, but with sixteen beta readers there was room for all comers.

And besides, when you establish a relationship with a beta reader in a swap you sort of become friends anyway, so you know.

My book still stinks, I mean, it stinks in an awesome way, and yeah, you want to avoid a committee approach to revision. In my experience, though, having sixteen beta readers got me to the point where I could identify good feedback and bad feedback. And the bad feedback is only bad because it does not *fit* my vision.

So, yeah, you are your best critic and getting there takes a little while.

Oh, I've worked with a few editors as well. Each one is different. It'll be the same with readers after publishing.

SAWeiner said:

How do you know that the new person/people will be any better than the others you've relied on?

Click to expand...

Watch how they crit other people. It’s easier to be objective when you have no skin in the game. You’ll get a feel for who is more interested in looking smart vs being helpful/encouraging, who seems to know what they’re talking about (because their crits make sense to you, or they see things you couldn’t see till they pointed it out) and who talks a good game but doesn’t back it up with good writing. If you’re paying for it, treat it like a job interview and ask for references/examples.

SAWeiner said:

How do you know they know what they are talking about, are reviewing carefully enough, and are not afraid to hurt your feelings?

Click to expand...

This is the eternal problem. You’ll chance on people who are good eggs, do everything you can to keep in their good graces ;-) For the well-meaning rest, you can help the process by being specific about the feedback you’re after. There are good strategies to that end explained in:

Wired for Story (Ch 12)
Critical Response Process (...the whole thing...)
Playwright’s Guidbook (Ch 12 again, lols, and not only applicable to plays...)

lizmonster said:

I think you're expecting way too much of your betas, by the way. Nobody gets 100% of the issues ever, even the pros. And there are plenty of issues folks notice that they don't feel are important enough to mention, even if they drive you crazy once you see them.

Also, published authors aren't automatically better at crit than anyone else. Critting well is a talent, and not everybody has it.

Click to expand...

^^ This. +100

If I was forced to pick a favourite writer, it's probably Stephen King.

But there are elements in his work - plot holes, contradictions, things I simply can't suspend disbelief for. He's fantastically successful, extremely experienced, and yet there are plenty of issues in his work. I figure if he and his editors and proof readers aren't picking up all the issues there's little hope that the rest of us will. Get as much as you can and learn to let go.

Disclaimer: I'm working on my first novel now, but I do a lot of music for commercial use. There's a saying among composers that a work isn't finished, it's abandoned. And six months after you've left behind a piece you were very proud of at the time, you listen and realise all the things you'd now do differently. Because you're growing, changing. Creative production is a progression, hopefully upwards, in terms of ability. Come back to something you worked on a year ago. You can be satisfied about what it is, but if you can't see things you'd now change, you probably aren't growing. Hopefully the same with editors and proof readers, IMHO - they may critique something very differently now than how they would have five years ago.

I'm new to this site but I've been reading voraciously, and one thing I've realised quickly is that my tolerance for various things when reading is very different to other readers. Something I might like, to another reader it appears to be a mortal sin. The whole process is so subjective that all you can do is take the comments of others and weigh them carefully. You'll never be finished, but the goal, I think, is to be satisfied - ready to let go. The work is now fit for purpose.