Critique Partners Versus Beta Readers

Last week I discussed critique groups as a whole, and whether they were a good idea. I got a lot of great feedback on the topic, but wondered if people were talking about beta readers, rather than critique partners, in some places.

So what is the difference?

That's the question. When is a critique partner a beta reader, and vice versa? I'm willing to bet there will be quite a few differing ideas on this, so I'm going to throw out what the terms have meant in my head, and then I'll look forward to seeing how others define the two.

Beta Readers

To me, a beta reader is someone who will take the manuscript in its entirety and read it for an overall view of the manuscript. Basically, a detailed review. They're reading it as a reader, not a fellow writer. Their opinion is meant to give you an idea of what your audience might think. Is the book readable? Does it have good flow? Are the characters interesting? Would they purchase this book?

When you seek a beta reader, you're looking for someone to tell you whether anyone would read the book, not necessarily for specifics on character arc, grammar, etc. You want to know about the general readability of your book from them.

By OCAL, clker.com

Critique Partner

A critique partner, again...to my understanding, is someone we want to read the book as a writer. They're looking for the dynamics of writing. Story and character arc, realistic characterization, plot, theme, grammar. They should be looking at your work with the eye of someone who has experience with the dynamics of writing, someone who has experience writing and/or has attended various workshops and conferences and can give an educated opinion. Rather than looking at what the reader has to say, their opinion should be closer to that of agents and editors. Instead of saying, "Would someone buy this at a bookstore?" as a beta reader would, they should be asking, "Would an agent/editor give this a second look?" Is it salable? Is it ready?

By Roxy, clker.com

I have an awesome beta reader (not that I've given her anything recently) who intermingles the two. Though she isn't a writer, she has a great eye, and she is accustomed to beta reading/critiquing her husband's work (he is an aspiring screenwriter). For me, that is perfect, and just what I need. She catches problems with the story flow, the characters, grammar, etc. But she's looking at it from a reader's point of view, not a writer's.

On the flip side of that, I have my critique group, made up of people in various stages of their writing journey. They bring writing knowledge to on the dynamics and specifics to the table. I find having both of these a helpful part of my writing journey, each for their own reasons.

This is just how I see it, in brief. What's your opinion? Have I fudged the two? Do you see the definition of these two terms in a different way?

May you find your Muse.

Critique Groups: Yay or Nay?

After a sizable hiatus, my critique is finally going to meet again tonight. We started this summer, but were all so incredibly busy that we only met twice before having to pause. While I'm not sure we're really any less busy, I'm excited to be back at it.

One resounding thing I've heard over and over in the writing world is "You must get a critique group!" It's usually said forcefully, but with a pleasant smile. Inside they're saying, "Get a critique group or FAIL!"

By Alice, clker.com

Okay, maybe that's a little dramatic.

At conferences, conventions, and workshops, I repeatedly hear that writers need a critique group, that a critique group can help you get your manuscript ready for submission. Some people swear by them, with thanks to critique groups showing up in the front of books.

However, there's also an outspoken contingent who say critique groups can ruin your book, or possibly your self-esteem as a writer. That it's poison to go into a group and deal with people who rip your work apart. Some cite groups they've gone into where there was at least one really nasty person who did nothing but criticize, never giving construction criticism, just nastiness.

I've witnessed several panels where an argument has ensued over whether or not you should join a critique group.

By OCAL, clker.com

In my opinion, you should try it out and see if it works for you, but only if you're interested. Don't be bullied into deciding one way or another. Do you feel your manuscript could benefit from having a fresh pair of eyes on it (or a few)? Have you read your book so many times that you have it memorized, so you can't pick out any issues? In that case, it would be a good idea to seek out a critique group. Be sure you are prepared to do critiques, as well as receive them, and that you're dedicated to the group. Otherwise, you shouldn't start until you can be completely dedicated. Critique groups work both ways, and you need to be a full partner in it.

On the other hand, if you feel there's nothing to fix, that it really wouldn't matter what they're going to say to you, skip it. You won't be open to what anyone is saying, anyway, so this isn't an option for you. In order to get anything out of a critique group, you must be open to hearing what other people have to say.

There's another reason not to do it, as well, though, which comes up on the opposite side. If you will be too open, if you'll take everything they say and think you need to make those changes, you should probably avoid it, as well. I feel like you have to have some confidence in your story to be able to get it critiqued. Of course, that's true for submitting it, too. If you have no confidence, you could end up tearing apart your story while stressing yourself out and questioning your ability to write, all because you couldn't pick out the useful feedback from the white noise.

I'm not saying it's easy. I'm starting over on a book that very nearly became a trunk book, all because I took everything to heart that was said in critiques. When I couldn't reconcile my opinion with several mixed opinions, all of which differed from each other on various aspects of the story, I gave up.

By OCAL, clker.com

Once you decide whether a critique group is for you, you've got to hunt one down. If you have some writer friends whose opinions you trust, see if they're interested in starting a critique group. They don't have to be local; you can email the critiques. We like to meet in person, but I think that's because we enjoy the social aspect of it, as well.

If you don't have writer friends you'd like to start a critique group with, you can check into local writer's groups. Go to meetings they offer and meet other writers. Check on their website, any forums they may have, etc., and see if they have any critique groups or if they have a mechanism with which to hook you up with any.

If that fails, start searching online. There are Meetup groups you might be able to find online by plugging in your location. Search for forums or online critique websites. There are some websites dedicated to allowing online critiques, but you must earn them by giving critiques first and maintaining a certain amount of points.

Once you've found or created your critique group, figure out the group's rules and get started! How are you expected to submit? What does the critique consist of (flow, grammar, answering specific questions, numerical judging, etc.)? How long will you have to do the critique? When do you need to get your piece in by? Will you email it or meet in person? If you're meeting in person, will you get the piece in advance to go over and make notes on so you can come prepared to the meeting? How many words/chapters will you submit at a time? How often will you critique?

Getting these and other questions hammered out in advance will make your life easier as you go into the critique group world.

Tell me about your experiences with critiques. Are you strongly on one side or the other (pro or con)? Have you had any especially nasty experiences in critique group? Any wonderful ones?

May you find your Muse.