When do people reach the beta stage?

I think it varies, depending on the writer. For me, it's "When you feel that it's as close to publishable as you can make it without help". I complete a first draft, a second, print it and revise on paper, and then administer those changes. At that point, I send my book to betas.

Here's the main reason (besides pride): many of my first and second draft errors, I can find and fix myself. Why suffer the task to someone else? The real value of a beta is finding problems I'm too close to see on my own.

Like wandergirl said, it depends. Also like her, I send mine out just before I submit it, after I have edited the crap out of it and am at a standstill. They proof it, make a couple of corrections/suggestions, then out the door it goes.

I definitely think you should do at least one run through of it on your own before giving it to betas. For the same reason wandergirl said--your rough draft has a lot of errors that you can fix on your own, and those can be distracting for betas. Last time I sent something out to betas, I had done two revisions on it--one just a few chapters I finished writing it when I was feeling a little blocked and wanted to get reinspired, and then I revised it again after setting it aside for a couple days once I was finished writing it.

That worked well for me. You have to do what works for you, but definitely no matter what, at least do one revision. Beta readers will thank you for it, and be a lot more willing to read for you again.

It's really the "I've done what I can" part that means the most. I'm also a proponent of taking revisions slow because you just can't do revision after revision, one tailing the other. Somewhere in there, a break is critical so you can revise with more perspective. Many writers say three months. I have less patience, but there's always a point where I let it sit & simmer for a few weeks. That can coincide with the time the betas have it, if it must.

I've just discovered the truth of that! I'm discovering that not having looked at my WIP for about a month while it was with betas has helped me be a lot more objective revising it. It's not so fresh.

I usually do an edit than a proofread before sending it out to a beta reader. But lately, I've been having bad luck with finding competent beta readers. Makes me sad, but I am getting much better at finding most flaws on my own. Still want other eyes though...

For me as a beta reader, I just want to know you've done the best you reasonably can. I think that takes at least one edit, and almost certainly a proofread unless you write very clean first drafts, but I'm not going to quibble with the method as long as the results are fine. Someone I beta read for uses Holly Lisle's One-Pass Revision Method, so I think she does only one (fierce) edit, but her novels are always beautiful when I get them.

(I should patent my special Floundering Around Making No Progress Revision Method.)

I recently got back my first full beta, and now I have a much better idea of what to be on the look out for the next time I send something out. Even though I'd proofread each chapter after I'd finished it, and did a final read through, I was more focused on finding any plot holes or inconsistencies instead of some basic errors (a few spelling and grammar).
Next time, I'm going to wait a few weeks after I finish and try to be much more cautious of the simple mistakes as well.

It depends on what you're looking for from the critique.

I have a crit group that looks over first draft stuff that I find very helpful. They point out story issues and offer suggestions on deepening the story or tweaking the plot. They get it as soon as it leaves my brain, and I know those pages have all kinds of issues. They ignore typos and the small polishing comments, because they know this is all about the macro-level story crafting and not the writing itself.

I also have a crit group I use when the novel is as good as I can make it without help. They'll go through it with a fine-toothed comb and look at it as a professional novel. They make sure the writing is top-notch, the story works, the pacing is fab, all the things a pro-level novel needs to be. I edit and make it as good as I can before they get it (usually).

And then I have friends who'll read a second or third draft, because I have issues I know need fixing but I'm not sure where or how. I need some eyes on it to spot the stuff I just can't see.

There's no right or wrong time for beta readers. Hand it over when you want feedback on your work.

I get it in the best shape that it can be before I send mine out.

I learned a lot from my Beta reader when she read my first 2 WIPs so, hopefully, the WIP will be shorn of adverbs and excess commas before she gets to read it...that way my knuckles won't hurt so much when she raps 'em

Coming from a serial beta-reader, who'll only take stuff that the author thinks is ready to query agents with, your father is absolutely right. I see no end of works that the authors could have fixed much of the worst themselves before passing it onto me.
If something took you six months to write, I don't believe it to be ready to be sent out for at least another six months. If people don't want to edit their own work as professionally as possible, then maybe they should consider stopping writing altogether. - The editing is just as important as the writing.

RRK said:

He was appalled and suggested that it should take as long as a year just to do the edits. Now I know editing is important, and for some great books that much time really does go into the process, but, impatient person that I am, I think I'd go crazy if I edited for that long!

That's what got me thinking about when it was okay to say "I've done what I can, time for someone else to take a look."

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.

Click to expand...

Samantha's_Song said:

If something took you six months to write, I don't believe it to be ready to be sent out for at least another six months.

Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. My previous WIP took five and a half months to write and there's no way I need to spend that length of time editing it. I know what needs to be done, so I do it. Editing takes less time than creating the story, so if you know what needs to be written and you get on with it, there's no reason for it to take the same amount of time again.

Writing the first draft involves a lot of thinking time for me because I don't outline, so if I take that out, writing straight through would probably take a month or so. And I won't even need to type out the whole thing again.

Samantha's_Song said:

If people don't want to edit their own work as professionally as possible, then maybe they should consider stopping writing altogether. - The editing is just as important as the writing.

Click to expand...

Taking months to edit a book doesn't mean you've done it properly. Someone could edit quickly and do a thorough job, whereas another person could take months and just, to use a Scottishism, be 'fannying about'.

But back to the OP. I send everything as I write it to tt42. Some bits to Libbie, some bits to Adzmodeus.

That's just hand-holding though. "No it's not shite. Carry on!"

When it comes to proper beta reading...I'll probably stick to tt42, Libbie and Adzmodeus and tell them to go to town on it rather than being kind.

If I wanted a proper beta-read I'd only send the complete polished manuscript. During the first draft stage I just send chapters or pages to tt42 with questions like, "What's another word for...?" or, "Does this scene work?"

Oh, I should add I know we're in the YA forum, but that's not my genre. Just sticking my 0:02c in.

Hehe. I didn't realise it was YA.

Yours might not need a lot of editing, but some people's do. For myself, I'll go over my own stuff many times over, trying to make it the best it can be. Shrugs, And I'm still never satisfied with it and I think some other wannbe published writers could really do with doing the same.

Samantha's_Song said:

Coming from a serial beta-reader, who'll only take stuff that the author thinks is ready to query agents with, your father is absolutely right. I see no end of works that the authors could have fixed much of the worst themselves before passing it onto me.
If something took you six months to write, I don't believe it to be ready to be sent out for at least another six months. If people don't want to edit their own work as professionally as possible, then maybe they should consider stopping writing altogether. - The editing is just as important as the writing.

Click to expand...

As with so many other things when it comes to writing, editing times will vary by writer (and by project). It's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Some writers can do an incredibly thorough revision in a week or two, while others may labor over it for a year. One is not more right than the other.

For my part, I do one revision before sending it out to my regular crit partners. This draft may have awkward wording and the prose may need tightening; that's okay, because what I want from those first crits is feedback on the story itself, not the words.

Once I've incorporated any feedback from my crit partners (and possibly sent it back for opinions a second or third time, depending), I polish the hell out of my manuscript.

Then I send it to a beta reader. For me, a beta reader doesn't necessarily have to be another writer. He or she is ideally a person who is well-read, articulate and intelligent. And brutally honest. She's a first reader, not a critiquer, and I want her to read my MS the same way she'd read a book plucked off the shelf. So I make sure to send the best, most polished version of the MS that I can.

/rambling

Like most people on this thread it depends. I went through my ms three times before I sent it beta readers. I edited a lot of my oopsies, added a couple chapters to help it flow better, and rearranged chapter one. It got to the point where I got cross eyed just thinking about what I's written. Then when I felt comfortable enough to have people read it and not think of me as an idiot.

When I finally sent the ms out I was terrified. I tried to stay away from family so as to get an unbiased opinion. I found ten random people, some with writing expertise and some that I new to read a lot in all areas. The tenth reader was a fluke. My husband's life long friend offered to read it; she loves vampire novels. It turns out, before she years of battling cancer, was an editor for an indie publishing company. Her notes were most insightful.

I guess in the end it comes down to when you are comfortable with what you've accomplished and how much criticism you can take in the most positive of ways. Good luck.

RRK said:

IHe was appalled and suggested that it should take as long as a year just to do the edits.

Click to expand...

I missed this the other day...

You don't need to edit for a year UNLESS the book needs a lot of editing. I edited for three months and got an agent. Another month or two for more edits then I got a book deal. Add up the time spent writing and editing, and it was a year (or a tad less) between the first day I wrote the first line and my sale.

Edit as much as the book needs. If that takes you two months fine. If it takes two years, fine. Every book you write will be different and will require different things.

As with everything in writing--serve the story. Take as long as it needs to be written and polished, then send it out.