Before a manuscript is sent to an editor, many authors use beta readers. They read the manuscript,
and give general reactions to it. A beta reader does not edit the book, nor
proofread it. A good one saves enormous time and money on editing and
proofreading, and gives the author the most important reaction: that of the eventual
reader.
I do beta reading for a few well-known authors, all of them
friends. I am brutally honest with the authors, because hiding what I perceive
as faults is no favor. I told one that the character “Smith” was obviously intended
to suffer from bipolar disorder (he was). The symptoms he had displayed in the
first, already-published, novel were inconsistent with the disease, but fully
consistent with intermittent explosive disorder, a rarer, but more dangerous
condition. She wasn’t happy, but took five full days rewriting the character
anyway. I have pointed out errors in terminology, geography, dialog and
medicine to authors, all of whom have thanked me.
Self-published authors usually use friends and family, who read
for free, and typically tell the author the book is great. I want honest
reactions, and hire beta readers among acquaintances I can be sure to be
honest. I ask beta readers specific questions, such as
Can you follow the plot?
Are the characters and dialog believable?
Are scenes and actions credible?
Will anyone care about any of the characters, or have some other strong emotion?
One reader just returned a beta read of Four
Seconds on the Clock: College Freshmen, and pointed out inconsistencies with
reality that would ruin the story for the reader. She was correct. I’m
currently rewriting major parts of the manuscript to conform with reality.
Better to delay publication by two weeks than to publish something readers won’t
enjoy.
If asked to be a beta reader, the best thing you can do for
the author is to be honest, brutally so if necessary. It is better for the
author to learn of problems before publication, than to publish and receive
scathing reviews.