Well, since no one else will, I'll try to give a little advice.

You want to be gentle, but helpful, you don't want to hurt his feelings, but you want to make him improve... Hmm. A fine line to walk.

The point of a beta is to be a fresh second set of eyes - no author can ever edit their own work as well as a second person; they're simply too involved.

You say you're not concerned about grammar... which is a shame. It's usually the easiest thing to correct.

But, putting that aside, first thing is, read for narrative flow. Anything that feels jarring, or makes you go, "Wait, wha?" mark with a red pen. 'Flow' is probably the single hardest thing to be objective about in your own writing - because, as the author, you know what all the characters are thinking, what's happening in the background, and where everything is leading. The objective is to bring the reader along for the ride.

But because you know everything, leaving stuff out, whether to build suspense or set up a surprise is very easy - unfortunately, it's also very easy to confuse the reader. So, any time you feel 'lost' you need to draw the author back to the point you drifted and get them to re-think the scene.

For example: As the author, I know that my wizard is going to cast an uber-powerful spell to escape this horrible beating he's currently receiving from a demon. I want that spell to be a surprise, something that makes the reader go, "Fuck yeah!", so I consciously avoid talking about this particular ability. However, just casting it and blowing the demon away makes little sense to the reader if I haven't dropped hints or used flashbacks to prepare the reader in some way. I don't want the reader to say, "Wait, where'd that come from?" It takes them out of the story.

Professional example: In A Madness of Angels, every major spell Swift casts comes out of left field. However, the author takes time setting up those spells, with Swift gathering ingredients, or having an audience surrogate with him, someone who's just as confused as the reader to show that we aren't supposed to know what's going on - yet.

Also keep in mind: a specific scene, standing on its own, should do one or more of three things:

1) Show action (characters are doing something);
2) Set up action (characters preparing to do something), or;
3) Give exposition (preparing the reader for characters to do something).

If a scene is not fulfilling any of those things, it needs tweaking, or removal. Action scenes are easy - they fit the first category. If the hero is a thinker, they might also fit the third. Flashbacks are usually the third, explaining why characters are doing what they are doing. Romantic interludes (dending on the skill of the writer) might fit all three: provide motivation for the character, explanation for the reader, and a little 'action', if you know what I'm saying.

As for how to tell someone something is weak:

Be gentle, at first. Start off with, "I wasn't quite sure what you were doing here," or "I found this part a little hard to read," or "I thought the phrasing was a little wordy."

Follow this up by making suggestions about word choice - if the author has to explain what something means on every page, he's trying too hard.

Grammar and spelling correction - which you should be making, despite what you said - you don't need to discuss. Outright changes, though - go over the most major ones at first. Anything that takes you out of the story, anything that confuses you, anything that simply reads awkwardly, these are what your friend needs to know about.

Hope this helps.

 

That was actually uncommonly useful, Chicago. So thanks to both of you, Cheddar for the thread and Chicago for the response; this just made my life slightly easier, as I've just began beta-ing a friend's story. It won't appear here, so don't even bother asking… it's just not good enough, sadly.

 

Should a Beta reader critique style in addition to plotholes/characterization/mechanics/grammar?

I always feel iffy about that because a writer's style is very much their own unique brand - and some people will like it while others will feel more ambivalent about it.

Is criticism of style over-stepping your bounds as a Beta?

 

Okay, first off, you're welcome, CT! It would thrill me to no end to be quoted - I'm a little egotistical. Wasn't sure if this would help or not, so glad you got something out of it. As turnabout is fair play, you are now one of my favourite readers.

In a word, yes.

In multiple words: Some people will tell you that style is connected to flow, but the simpler truth is that 'style' = 'expressiveness', ie, how a person 'speaks.' Critisizing that is roughly analogous to making fun of someone's accent - not very helpful at best, insulting at worst.

Flow is structure, pacing, development. Style is word choice + intention behind thse words.

Put another way: Flow is what story you are telling, style is delivery. Two different comedians can tell you the exact same joke, impart the exact same information, but the way they tell you, the way that information is imparted, can be radically different.

Compare Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby: Both like to talk about their childhood, their families, what happens to them when they go out in public. Both are damn funny. Subject matter is similar, if not the same. But the method of delivery, their styles, are completely different.

Critiquing style won't help, since you'd only be imposing your personal preference, which may not match with the author's intended final audience, and they'll end up so self-conscious of the form of delivery, they won't be able to focus on the story in the first place.

Conversely, if a joke just ain't funny, or a story just isn't going anywhere, no amount of dressing it up will help.

 

Also a little bit more on style. I've been betaing a guy's work for a year or so now and we ran into a big problem with my own style versus his. As I was critiquing I kept trying to trim some of his word usage and cut back on his descriptions. To me they seemed a bit flowery, and this caused a lot of tension, because he wouldn't.

In time I realized that was his style. He used more flowery prose than I and used a lot of description, also more words. So this is something to watch out for. First, make sure you know what his style is and critique around that. Example, sometimes my friend would go completely overboard on a few dramatic lines, and sometimes there didn't seem to be enough. Also, whenever a scene did not match his previous style, I would recommend he rewrite to match what he had done before. And at times his wordy sentences would get too unwieldy.

So don't be afraid to critique his style if it harms how the reader absorbs the data, or isn't consistent with prior scenes.

 

An important part of being a beta for someone who writes a lot and lays at your feet a lot of work is getting inside of their head. I do not beta a lot because when I do I am committed fully to it and I just can't get myself to half-ass stuff. Part of being a great beta for a project, imo, is betaing the person who is writing as much as the story itself.

Writers by our nature are people who don't like change. You can be told something doesn't sound right but damnit it is hard to see that yourself. He is your friend, think about what he needs, what he can take, and what can push him to his very limit. I will read a paragraph my very good friend has written and told him it is a piece of shit and I have no idea why he ever wrote it. I don't do it to be mean, I do it because I understand the pride my friend brings to everything. He understands that if I am saying something is bad that it is likely to be true, and he can't stand it.

For other people I will just stand back and be much more polite but point out the same things. Chicago made a great example of what basically every writer does: Confuse the reader. It is often corrected before the public ever sees it, but sometimes stuff just gets confusing. Speak plainly. Always speak plainly. If you want to not discourage him speak plainly about something good and bad.

Harsh: This sentence sucked because blah blah blah
Plain: This sentence made no sense because blah blah blah
Plain but also with good: This sentence made no sense because blah blah blah, but if you correct that mistake everything surrounding it was really good.

Different people need different levels of poking at their personality and their work. Don't let your wants become his needs. Does he need to not be discouraged in any way? Or are you trying to be nice?

Don't know if I said anything helpful, just stuff I do when looking over people's works.

 

Honest critique is essential when casting your eye over someone's work.

I've noticed no replies thus far have suggested commenting on what this writing friend of yours has done well, CheddarTrek.

That can be of tremendous use.

Just a thought.