Writers: You Don’t Need a Beta Reader
Yes, you read that title correctly. One of an author’s allegedly most useful resources—getting someone read an unpublished work to aid with its revising, also known as a beta reader—is unnecessary.
By now, you’re probably yelling at your screen and exiting this essay. If you’re still here, I’ll tell you why I make such a strong statement. (Hint: It’s not AI. What kind of a writer do you take me for?)
Beta readers have long been used as a sounding board for authors. They can offer an opinion on whether or not they enjoyed the story, as well as catch grammatical, spelling, cultural, or technical mistakes. Weeding out non-grammatical errors is a valid reason to use a beta reader, up to a point. I’ve received the help of beta readers in the past, and I thank every one of them for that. I’ve also been a beta reader, and I understand the courage it takes to show someone, in confidence, your unpublished work. It implies—demands, even—a level of trust between the author and the beta reader. That, too, can be a positive thing. Thus I’ll say that, if you enjoy using beta readers, or beta reading for another writer, then by all means, continue doing so. Every writer’s process is different, and whatever improves your work is worth the effort.
So why do I suggest otherwise?
Once you’ve been writing for a time, and gotten a few publishing credits to your name, you don’t need beta readers. If you’re worried about grammatical and spelling errors, well, there’s a reason you should read over your manuscript after the final revision is complete. The more of this work that you can do for yourself, the better you’ll be at catching mistakes in your next manuscript. Afterward, you use spell check on your word processor, and then you let a copy editor catch any other errors, should the piece get accepted for publication; that is their job, after all (AI be damned). That’s it. I know we wrangle over our manuscripts being perfect, and one should put in an effort, but you’re not going to catch everything. Neither will a beta reader.
As writers, it’s our hope (wish?) that another person reads our work. Preferably after it’s been published, but sometimes the desire to share something you’ve spent months, or even years, working on is hard to resist. You’re dying to know what someone thinks of your story. I get it. I’ve been there. So you contact those you suspect might beta read your work. But think of what you’re asking someone to do: most of your prospective readers are likely other writers. They have their own manuscripts to work on. They have a TBP pile of books they’d love to read. And you’re asking them to read your work. If you have a novel, that’s a significant investment of their time. Be considerate. Plus, their schedule and output might not fit yours. If you churn out several novels a year, it’s unreasonable to expect to find beta readers for all of them.
Also, a beta reader will give you a subjective view of your work, rather than an objective one. That rarely aids the creative process. Their feedback will likely focus on the story they would have written, not the one you sent them (I’m guilty of that as a beta reader, which is one reason I no longer do it). They may dislike the genre you’re writing in, or they don’t connect with your characters, or they find your plot and premise boring. That’s not their fault; a story isn’t for everyone. But their comments might be more opinion than fact, and you might pay too much attention to their advice, even subconsciously. This can hurt your story. After writing for years, you’ll usually know what advice to act upon, and which advice to ignore. To which I say, if you possess that level of craft, why use a beta reader? You’ll know in your gut if something in a story works or not. It’s the little things you keep thinking about, and inventing excuses and explanations for, so they’ll fit the story. Those are the parts you should fix—and you don’t need a beta reader for that, either.
As far as avoiding non-grammatical errors, such as cultural misunderstandings, or technical mistakes, that’s why you research those things first. You shouldn’t depend on a beta reader for that, even if those subjects fall within their levels of expertise. As the writer, you should at least have a grasp of what you’re writing about, especially if it involves factual phenomena that exists in the real world. Sensitivity readers can be an aid, but again, you should do your homework before you begin the manuscript.
Then there is the hardest reason of all not to use a beta reader: your confidence, or lack thereof. I don’t phrase it that way to be harsh. I’ve battled a lack of confidence in my work, and that’s something you have to overcome on your own, not through the help of a beta reader. I’ll explain.
Maybe you’re using a beta reader because you don’t trust your own writing? I’m not talking about your prose and the mechanics of grammar; I’m referring to the story itself. Did you say what you needed to say with it? Are you happy with its conclusion, and the fates of its characters? Do you still feel connected to—and fulfilled by—your story, after reading through it again? And yet again? If you answered ‘yes’ to all of those questions, then you don’t need a beta reader. Seeking out another’s opinion for something you created, whose function is to entertain and inspire, rather than serve as a textbook, is likely a reflection of your insecurity. We’ve all suffered from it at one time or another. It’s a rare artist who doesn’t experience creative diffidence. I’ve certainly felt insecure about my work, and it took years to surmount that doubt and simply run with the story. There’s a fine line between confidence and arrogance, even in the art of prose fiction, but once you’ve become a veteran of the process, you’ll know the difference.
By now, you’re probably thinking ‘well, Stephen King uses a beta reader: his wife!’. And you’re correct; King refers to Tabitha as his First Reader. Good for him. Critics of my statement will point to King’s successful writing career, which is exponentially greater than mine by many magnitudes, as proof that I’m wrong. But he doesn’t need a beta reader, either. I suspect he enjoys letting his spouse see the story before anyone else does, and if that works for him, great.
Or, you’re looking up my books on Amazon (hey, buy one!) and you’re reading a sample and thinking ‘look at this garbage, this guy should have gotten a beta reader!’. Fine, you hate my work; join the club. One of my novels was published with errors due to a track changes issue in MS Word, but that was corrected, and now the manuscript is as it should be. Yet that had nothing to do with me not using a beta reader. Perhaps you found an error in this essay, and you’ve spit your coffee all over your laptop as you laugh at my expense. Good for you (unless it was decaf, then…why?). It still doesn’t prove me wrong. Ultimately, you must possess confidence in yourself, and your story, in order to submit your work for publication and see what happens.
Writers have many tools at their disposal. A thesaurus, a dictionary, a spell checker, or a cup of proper coffee with enough caffeine to fuel a vessel to Alpha Centauri. They would be wise to utilize the ones necessary to make their work shine. But for veteran writers, a beta reader isn’t one of them. In nearly all cases, they provide the work that you should be doing yourself.
Trust yourself. Trust your story. If it doesn’t sell, or if an editor hates it? Well, so what? Rejection is part of the process, and a beta reader isn’t going to save you from it. Write the next story. That’s the determination this business requires. That’s what an artist does. You see the world, and you create something to express how it makes you feel. You don’t need someone to tell you how you feel. By extension, you don’t need me telling you what to do, either. After a time, you’ll know—which proves my point.
Image Credit: Andrew Neel via Unsplash