Hmm, see, I don't think that concrit is really the same sort of thing as beta-reading. During the writing process, you have maybe one or two people who will look over your work, help you out with certain parts, and so on. These are your beta-readers.
However, once you've actually decided, 'OK, this fic is AS FINISHED AS I WANT IT TO BE,' and posted it to your LJ/mailinglist/communities, and you ask for concrit, you're inviting people who haven't seen your drafts, or looked at earlier versions with a critical eye, to give their fresh thoughts. What's also worth noting is that concrit isn't just to help you to look at your work and see what could have been changed, or worked out differently--it is also there to help you in future works. It's not the case that people should only look at unfinished work and offer criticism; rather, it's just as valid to critique a finished, published work. The writer can then take the comments into consideration for future works, or even redrafts.
If you look, for example, at an academic text, it is essential to consider the edition from which you are working/quoting/whatevering, because no matter how much the author thought (at the original time of publication) that their work was complete or perfect, or so on, in 99% of cases they discover (from what boils down to 'concrit') that there was a flaw in their argument; that they missed something crucial; or, heck, even that there were some mundane errors that were missed on the first forty sweeps through.
I have later edition philosophy books which are filled with extra papers and arguments arose from critiques of the early editions (in some cases, the critiques themselves are published). These are not books that were published while the author felt that they were incomplete--in some cases, they were written and critiqued over a decade before publication--but once they were opened to a wider audience, the received comments spurred the authors to add appendices, new prefaces, or even change the text itself.
I don't at all mean to disparage the beta-reading process at all. I think that in all cases, having someone else read through your work (at whatever stage) is beneficial. Some people choose not to use a beta-reader, and that is of course their prerogative (because, hey, we all write for fun here), but I cannot think of any serious writers, academic or otherwise, who would publish without editing (or, in most cases, who would be able to publish without editing!). (And those writers who kick up a fuss about editing their work are reviled by publishers. My sister works in publishing, and often tells me tales of which authors are most hated by their editors.)
So, this is a very long and rambly comment. Basically, beta-readers, yay! concrit, also yay! but concrit =/= telling you to go back and change the text, but also giving you information about your writing that you can take with you and use in the future!
no subject
However, once you've actually decided, 'OK, this fic is AS FINISHED AS I WANT IT TO BE,' and posted it to your LJ/mailinglist/communities, and you ask for concrit, you're inviting people who haven't seen your drafts, or looked at earlier versions with a critical eye, to give their fresh thoughts. What's also worth noting is that concrit isn't just to help you to look at your work and see what could have been changed, or worked out differently--it is also there to help you in future works. It's not the case that people should only look at unfinished work and offer criticism; rather, it's just as valid to critique a finished, published work. The writer can then take the comments into consideration for future works, or even redrafts.
If you look, for example, at an academic text, it is essential to consider the edition from which you are working/quoting/whatevering, because no matter how much the author thought (at the original time of publication) that their work was complete or perfect, or so on, in 99% of cases they discover (from what boils down to 'concrit') that there was a flaw in their argument; that they missed something crucial; or, heck, even that there were some mundane errors that were missed on the first forty sweeps through.
I have later edition philosophy books which are filled with extra papers and arguments arose from critiques of the early editions (in some cases, the critiques themselves are published). These are not books that were published while the author felt that they were incomplete--in some cases, they were written and critiqued over a decade before publication--but once they were opened to a wider audience, the received comments spurred the authors to add appendices, new prefaces, or even change the text itself.
I don't at all mean to disparage the beta-reading process at all. I think that in all cases, having someone else read through your work (at whatever stage) is beneficial. Some people choose not to use a beta-reader, and that is of course their prerogative (because, hey, we all write for fun here), but I cannot think of any serious writers, academic or otherwise, who would publish without editing (or, in most cases, who would be able to publish without editing!). (And those writers who kick up a fuss about editing their work are reviled by publishers. My sister works in publishing, and often tells me tales of which authors are most hated by their editors.)
So, this is a very long and rambly comment. Basically, beta-readers, yay! concrit, also yay! but concrit =/= telling you to go back and change the text, but also giving you information about your writing that you can take with you and use in the future!