I'm not asking "Why have them?" I'm wondering why they are called beta readers when they are also known as first readers. Shouldn't they be called alpha readers?
I understand that writers/authors are the alpha readers because we are control freaks and very protective of our work and careful about who we share it with. But it still makes more sense to me to call first readers "alpha readers" or beta readers "second readers."
Whatever they are called, beta readers are important and they must understand how important they are. A writer needs a beta reader that takes a vested interest in a work's well-being; who truly cares about the author and wants the book or story to be the absolute best it can be.
My beta reader is my awesome oldest niece. She is currently doing her job on my second book. She wasn't the first reader of my first book and she should have been. She didn't read it until after it was published and has been taking notes and giving advice on how it can be improved and problems with the plot or characters that no one else - even me - noticed or mentioned. (Fortunately, one of the great things about e-publishing is the ability to edit/rewrite and then republish the improved edition.)
It's better if a writer doesn't find out after their book is published that they need a beta reader. Having more than one beta reader is also good. (Maybe this is why they are called beta readers? There can be only one alpha, but any number of betas.) It may take a false start or two to find the right beta reader, but once a writer has one (or more), they should appreciate what a blessing it is.
www.daylightsend.weebly.com
No comments:
Post a Comment