From Dean Wesley Smith:
Beginning writers have a belief that the more people who read their work, the better their work will be. Of course, that flies in the face of any creation of art by an artist. But the fear is great among young writers, most of who are indie writers these days.
Long term pros? What do they do? Maybe have one first reader, maybe not. Most not.
Why? Because creating original fiction is not a group effort, that’s why.
Thinking you need beta readers is one of the deadliest myths that has come about in this new world.
Where Did This “Beta Reader” Concept Come From?
The easy and honest answer is fear.
But I need to do a little history as I normally do in these chapters.
Back in the pulp era, writers wrote on typewriters. Almost all did single draft and gave the story to their editors at magazines. (A few book houses, but not many. Most novels were published in magazines in the pulp period. Most novels from that period have never seen a hardback or paperback reprint.)
The editor might mark the manuscript up like a copyeditor, adding in directions for layout and such, then send it for typesetting and the story would hit print.
(In case you didn’t know, this marked-up manuscript came to be known as “Foul Matter.” I got many of my “foul matter” manuscripts back after publication over the years.)
As time progressed into the second half of the 20th century, this practice continued. Sometimes a writer would have a trusted first reader, but the longer-term professionals did not. They continued to write clean one draft and give it to their editor for print.
They trusted their own skill and art. And they didn’t allow their editor to touch their stories and most editors didn’t.
But then in the late 1960s and booming into the 1980s and forward came the peer workshop, where a bunch of writers at the same level of skill and lack of publishing credits sat around and critiqued commas. Sometimes at horrid length.
This started to give beginning writers the feeling that if they pleased their workshop, they had a good story. Or even worse, if they took all the suggestions from their workshop and incorporated all the suggestions, they would have a good story.
. . . .
Then in 2010 along comes the indie movement. And beginning writers, being afraid, very, very afraid of god-knows-what, decided that they needed a bunch of readers to make sure their manuscript was a very, very smooth and smelly pile of mush. So they roped in friends and other writers to be “beta readers.”
In other words, they copied the peer workshop experience right into the middle of their own publishing work.
Often a writer could have up to ten “beta readers” on a book, the best way to guarantee that the book will be not only dull, but boring.
But the typing would be perfect. God help a poor typo that slipped through that gauntlet.
And now here, in 2017, as I write this, the concept of “beta readers” makes me shudder every time I type the phrase. I had hoped for a few years it would die off as the really bad idea it is. But nope. It has gained myth status, sadly.
And it now is hurting some really fine writers.
. . . .
Just a few days ago a wonderful writer who I have seen some fantastic work in online workshops, (where I get to see first draft stuff) told me that her most recent book was at her beta readers. Seven or eight of them I think.
I wanted to say that it wasn’t her book anymore, it was “their” book. But I said nothing, just as over the last years since this horrid practice started I have said nothing.
Writing by committee makes dullness. It takes out your writer voice, and often your character voice.
And I honestly have no idea why writers don’t have more pride in their work. That is the aspect of all this that bothers me. No one touches my work. It is my work. Period. Good or bad.
And I am proud of that fact. Good or bad.
Link to the rest at Dean Wesley Smith and thanks to Sue for the tip. Here’s a link to Dean’s books. If you like an author’s post, you can show your appreciation by checking out their books.
It seems to me that there should be LESS typos today, both pbook and ebook, than in the past. The reason? Changes in publishing technology.
Back in the day, a writer submitted a hardcopy that was then re-keyed in by someone else, thus increasing the odds of typos.
Today, an electronic submission can be directly input without re-keyboarding. Of course, it’s now the responsibility of the writer to catch typos before submitting an electronic file. Sadly, some writers just don’t care or don’t bother.
Yes, such laziness bugs me. But then, I’ve had a career as an editor as well as an original writer. Yes, I am a grammar and spelling Nazi, and I can live with that.
It’s agony for me to see a typo in my own writing that I didn’t catch. So I try to catch them.
I’m currently taking Dean’s “self-editing workshop,” which I find extremely helpful. That’s what’s got him going off on the beta-readers, I think. The general message is “trust your creative 2-year old, who is a fine storyteller.” So I try to “babysit” my inner creative 2-year old without being a helicopter parent and stifling its wonderful imagination. Dean’s a bit of a writer-whisperer, in that he had coaxed me into more professional, positive, and self-confident writing and publishing behaviors over the last few years. Kris, too. This was no small task, because English is only my 4th language and it took me for bloody ever to trust myself the slightest bit. I mean, even now, I’ll miss the stupid articles indigenous to the English language, but at least I no longer randomly sprinkle a handful of “the’s” and “a’s” merely to “satisfy convention” and hope for the best.
You will probably say that I need a proof-reader. That I do, however I was dismayed to find out that price and experience bears absolutely no relationship to the quality of the said person’s work. Errata will occur, and I had made my peace with an allowance of 5 minor errors per book.
This being said, I still have a beta-reading relationship with two other writers. We live many time-zones from each other, but we occasionally fly over to visit and sight-see and write together. The process of beta-ing is more of a community endeavor, where we hunt down each other’s typos and cheer-lead. Even though I have gotten some really good, constructive comments from either one or the other friend over the years, and I hope I had done the same for them, it’s rare now to get, or give, a comment that would suggest a significant change. I have also gotten comments I chucked right away, and I hope they do the same with mine, when my view of their writing doesn’t mesh with their vision. Writing is a solitary endeavor. I don’t like to talk about it with family or people in real life, therefore having a few kindred souls is a welcome blessing.
Wow! This got people talking. Some pontificating. Here is my take:
Dean says that every writer is different. You can’t make rules for all writers. Trust your subconscious.
Dean has a first reader, which is a sort of beta reader. But unless he agrees that something needs fixing, he doesn’t touch the story. What he learns goes on the next story. BTW, this doesn’t include typos. Of course you fix them whenever you find them.
Ray Bradbury was his own beta reader. He would read the story out loud, fixing as he did. Then the story went out.
I 1) agree in part and 2) disagree in part.
1) I frequented two writers’ groups. Essentially, beta readers in the the round. I soon learned to heed all the critiques I got from one third, heed part of the critiques I got from another another third, and ignore the critiques from the last third. The first third were usually the same people, but I could not tell beforehand who would fall in the part-heed and the ignore groups.
What I’m saying is if you use beta readers indiscriminately, yeah, it becomes writing by committee and you turn a horse into a camel. But it does not have to be that way.
2) I was the technical beta reader for Richard Fox The Red Baron. If ‘beta reader’ gives you heartburn, call it technical editor. Richard wrote a good book, but the man knows squat about the history of Great War aviation. That is not an insult. Richard was smart enough to know he knew nothing and got me to correct his mistakes. No, the Sopwith Pup had only one gun, not two. No, no, NO!; Manfred von Ricthofen never flew a loop in his life and he said so and quit it, just quit writing that he pulled up into a loop, dammit!
Like a wrench, beta readers can be a useful tool to tighten up a writer’s story. But a wrench makes a poor hammer and is totally ineffective as a screwdriver. (Or a sonic screwdriver. 😉 )
Im with him. DSW
When life has less years ahead than behind, I sometimes look back and see that some endeavors were not worth the time –nor money in some cases. Esp not the time spent. Reading groups, beta so-called readers, critique groups would fall into the ‘never again’ cat. Not because my work is perfect, but because there are other ways to see/check/shape one’s work in solitary… and then out the door.
Dean and Kris are two extraordinary and one of a kind persons. Bec of a long life in books, I know many authors. Many. But I have never known two like D and K except maybe for Michael Creighton, maybe Steve King, and maybe Maya Angelou. There might be a few others who are prolific, deep, multifaceted in surprising ways.
I have trusted their ways and means to excellent ends, for years now. They have the creds, and the scar tissue both. Because of Dean’s prompting I brought my ebooks out. The first months were overwhelming in terms of sales that my trad publishers dont even come close to in their 2x year insane model of author payment.
I agree entirely with writing like a madman if you have the talent for it, and.or one is called to it. If either of those are missing, then another way through will suffice.
I’ve heard Dean say do this, try this, and offer the bones of it, so one can build it reliably. I’ve not heard anybody ‘must.’ But appreciate that no one’s way who is here at TPV is everyone’s way. That seems a simple given.
And I see that Dean is correct esp re newbies who think they are going to make it ‘the old dead way.’ I have years and years of pp sending us mss, and one keeps trying to warn/ show the way… sometimes to good effect and sometimes not. I think I get what D and K are trying to do. They know the abyss and the tar pits and trying to warn the young/naive away. I esteem that, rather than condemn protections aimed toward the inexperienced.
Dean’s many ways, appeal, I think, to persons who have much to write and the stamina to write it consistently, and are looking for ways to take those bottom drawer mss, pipe dream stories, into the world. I see many authors are inspirited as though constantly filled with ideas from a firehose. The methods of doing and bringing would serve many of them.
As for vulgar attacking of any author here , that is completely out of bounds in my neck of the woods. “…poop out your first draft, slap a cheapjack cover on it, and publish. And if it’s a bit too malodorous even for oneself, publish it under a pseudonym so as not to pollute the precious bodily fluids…”
Not sure why a discussion amongst peers would deteriorate into that. Why disagreeing falls to insult. Just know that kind of reaction is, perhaps best on the millions of sites where people daily empty their screed on one another. Yeah, I can scroll on by. But I thought this site was based on civility.
Yup.
Wonderfully said!
+1. I’ll throw in my own observation.
My way of dealing with readers, of all stripes (alpha, beta, workshops, writing groups, reviews) is the same way I used to handle software client comments, requests, and recommendations. I try to pay close attention to their issues, their likes and dislikes, pains and pleasures, but little or no attention to their solutions or advice.
Readers seldom know enough about an author’s goals and inner life to come up with solutions that work for the author, but authors who write for their readers must listen to them. Some reader suggestions are useful, but understanding the underlying issue that the advice is meant to address is more important.
Paying attention can be tedious and time-consuming and writers have to manage the balance between listening and working on their product. Maximizing the ROI on your efforts is not easy, but you have to do it for yourself.
And a wonderful thing about digital publishing is that typos can still be corrected after release.
>pay no attention to their solutions
Ah, interesting. That’s what I’ve noticed with editors: their solutions rarely work, but their rewrite lets me know that something wasn’t clear enough at that spot.
+1
As the title says, “Killing the Sacred Cows of Publishing.” I’m sure that many writers benefit from beta readers. I also suspect anyone who does, or is likely to, can easily disregard this advice.
But I do think that it’s good to push back against the conventional wisdom that beta readers are necessary or a requirement for indy publishing. I think there are beginning writers who will waste time with bad input from beta readers. Those writers are probably are better off going with their gut instincts and writing more frequently than rewriting to please a small subset of readers.
My own stuff is just simply too weird to give people a chance to second guess it. I write what I like and hopefully there are readers who will find it to their taste.
Wow. What he describes sounds absolutely nothing like any of the beta reads I’ve ever been a part of. As a beta reader, I’m just required to note what Im thinking and feeling as I read the story, where I got confused, and what is unclear to me. I’m specifically NOT supposed to give advice on how to “fix” the story. I am supposed to mention any misspelled words I come across, of course. Interesting how the same words can mean different things to different people.
Yes, this is what I look for from a beta reader.