This is something I find challenging when I'm beta-reading someone else's work. In theory, all I can do is give my advice based on what I have read, but often I find myself just flat out re-writing the story so that it fits my image of how the story should flow. I don't want to seem pushy and overbearing, because I hate it when people do that to my own work.
For example: I gave feedback to one of the writers in this group I recently joined. His story opened up with a lot of infodumping and there was more of the same throughout the story. So I gave a suggestion as to how he could use one of the elements in his story to basically convey that information without just dumping it. There it was, the suggestion, and he could take it or leave it. But as the evening progressed, I began thinking of how he could write the story, and I asked if he wanted me to follow up in an e-mail to share more of my insight.
Of course he said yes, because I think I was the only person in the group who actually tried to make the two differing themes of his story work. It was a story about a clone, but it involved a ghost, and the other readers said that it was impossible, from their point of view, to combine the two. I presented a theory, based entirely on what was in his story, as to how they could work before making the suggestion about how to improve the info dumping thing. But I was afraid that any more feedback on my part would essentially be me rewriting the story.
When you're beta reading someone else's work, how do you find the line between simply advising the person and flat out writing the story for them?
Where is the line between giving advice and re-writing the story for them?
For example: I gave feedback to one of the writers in this group I recently joined. His story opened up with a lot of infodumping and there was more of the same throughout the story. So I gave a suggestion as to how he could use one of the elements in his story to basically convey that information without just dumping it. There it was, the suggestion, and he could take it or leave it. But as the evening progressed, I began thinking of how he could write the story, and I asked if he wanted me to follow up in an e-mail to share more of my insight.
Of course he said yes, because I think I was the only person in the group who actually tried to make the two differing themes of his story work. It was a story about a clone, but it involved a ghost, and the other readers said that it was impossible, from their point of view, to combine the two. I presented a theory, based entirely on what was in his story, as to how they could work before making the suggestion about how to improve the info dumping thing. But I was afraid that any more feedback on my part would essentially be me rewriting the story.
When you're beta reading someone else's work, how do you find the line between simply advising the person and flat out writing the story for them?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire