authors and betas..

Everyone needs beta readers. We can't view our own writing without bias. I've seen comments like that from more than one veteran author, but many times, their "betas" are, in fact, their editors.

I'm not even published, let alone a big name author, but I can't imagine handing over a manuscript to a publisher before a few people have reviewed it, no matter how popular I got.

I've just been writing an essay today [and editing.]

Wish I had some beta readers for Uni.

stitchingirl said:

That just sort of took me by surprise. Some part of me actually thought that those big named authors don't need to use beta readers.

Has anyone else felt like that?

Click to expand...

Yes. I thought Beta reader was just a phenomenon related to AW itself. I didn't think Big Name authors used them and I still don't believe any of the Giants of Literature ever used them.

I love my betas. They see everything before I send it to my editor. And what they spot is always dead on. Granted, I'm not a big name, just got my foot in the door, but I don't plan to ever change working with a crit group. They're invaluable.

I'd never heard of Beta readers before joining AW.

I wouldn't query anything now until beta readers looked at it first.

gothicangel said:

I've just been writing an essay today [and editing.]

Wish I had some beta readers for Uni.

Click to expand...

Check out your university's writing center.

I have a really awesome critique group that meets every Thursday (tonight!). And I have a few trusted friends online who have been marvelous beta readers. Meetup.com might be a good place to check for local writers' groups. I think it's important to "test drive" a group or a beta reader a little bit before you decide to work with them in any extensive way. It's always nice to know you're getting useful critiques.

There are many who like beta readers, but not many who actually need them. Most writers I've read would be a heck of a lot better off trusting their own judgement. Somehow, the modern writer has become convinced that the only way to write good fiction is to let seventeen other people, who also can't write good fiction, read and critique their work.

Thank God Shakespeare didn't use beta readers.

Shadow_Ferret said:

Yes. I thought Beta reader was just a phenomenon related to AW itself. I didn't think Big Name authors used them and I still don't believe any of the Giants of Literature ever used them.

Click to expand...

Jim Butcher was big in some online critique group many years ago, just before he published the first Harry Dresden book (as in, I think he had a book deal, but the book wasn't out). I'm 90% certain we exchanged a couple emails way back then. Maybe the beta reader concept originated there.

Then again, maybe he's an AW member.

Jamesaritchie said:

Somehow, the modern writer has become convinced that the only way to write good fiction is to let seventeen other people, who also can't write good fiction, read and critique their work.

Click to expand...

Good thing my beta reader can write good fiction then. You know, it's possible to get a second opinion and also trust your own judgment. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Jamesaritchie said:

There are many who like beta readers, but not many who actually need them. Most writers I've read would be a heck of a lot better off trusting their own judgement. Somehow, the modern writer has become convinced that the only way to write good fiction is to let seventeen other people, who also can't write good fiction, read and critique their work.

Thank God Shakespeare didn't use beta readers.

Click to expand...

I would respond to this, but I need someone to Beta-read my response for me first.

Lydia Sharp said:

Everyone needs beta readers.

Click to expand...

No they don't.

Lydia Sharp said:

We can't view our own writing without bias.

Click to expand...

Yes we can.

Lydia Sharp said:

I've seen comments like that from more than one veteran author, but many times, their "betas" are, in fact, their editors.

Click to expand...

My editor serves a far different purpose from my (one) beta reader, who is actually a writing partner, but there you go...

I can write a book without Lori.

I can't publish a book without my editor.

scarletpeaches said:

My editor serves a far different purpose from my (one) beta reader, who is actually a writing partner, but there you go...

I can write a book without Lori.

I can't publish a book without my editor.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I have a writing partner, a couple of beta readers, and editors. They all serve very, very different purposes.

Touche'. I know better than to speak in absolutes. We're all different.

Is there any possibility people will stop using the term "beta readers"? For centuries, authors have been having friends and colleagues read their works-in-progress. Why describe that with a term derived from software design?

But I've also noticed it mentioned in Acknowledgements pages lately.

DeadlyAccurate said:

Good thing my beta reader can write good fiction then. You know, it's possible to get a second opinion and also trust your own judgment. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

I agree - balance is key whatever one calls the person who is giving feedback on your writing (beta, second reader, critique group, circle of friends, agent, editor).

Not everything given as critique should be accepted. Not every story is bad for lack of having a second pair of eyes run over it before going out for submission or publication. But chances are such a person will point out something you missed, or make a comment which makes you realise that a certain detail could be emphasised more so that the reader doesn't mistake something so easily.

But all feedback must be weighed and taken judiciously. I worked for a time with another novelist (a better writer than I am) and we'd be each second reader for our novels, and I think we both benefited from that. But we were also so very different in certain ways, that care had to be taken not to end up writing a story according to the other's personal preferences.

Manuel Royal said:

Is there any possibility people will stop using the term "beta readers"? For centuries, authors have been having friends and colleagues read their works-in-progress. Why describe that with a term derived from software design?

But I've also noticed it mentioned in Acknowledgements pages lately.

Click to expand...

I always figured the term beta reader was more due to the fact they were the secondary readers of the story, that the 'alpha' or first reader is the author, and then you have the 'beta' or secondary reader?
Or am I completely wrong?
Cause that's how I always saw it.

It's probably related to the gaming industry. 'Alpha' testing is in-house testing done by the programmers. 'Beta' testing (particularly for MMO's) is when others (volunteers from the public) test the game and feedback and bugs, etc. [And that goes through stages of closed and open beta.]

I use a beta reader to help me stay in the correct tense and also with commas which are a pet hate of mine and I can never get right.

Ditto to roseangel. I see 'beta' meaning 'secondary' reader. As an ex-beta I was there to see if I got a kick out of it (like with any book bought off the shelf). If I didn't get a kick, I'd say why. I saw it as no different to giving an opinion on a published book off my shelf. Works were certainly treated at that level unless the author told me differently.

And I've been beta to some damn talented people. Makes me bloomin' sick, is does...

I think I should upgrade Lori to the term 'alpha reader'.