I just finished working through a lot of comments, questions, and revisions on a manuscript. Some flaws and tyoops were caught by the vast majority of outside readers. Some were only spotted by two or three. That’s normal.
But four readers flagged a major problem, each in different ways. The most detailed reader pegged the problem, as did the others. Two said, in essence, “Something feels off at the end, rushed, or there are missing pieces.” One was more specific, and the most detailed critique stated precisely what the problem was. When four readers who are familiar with the story world all say, “Something’s not right,” then you, oh fellow writer, need to listen hard and see what is missing/overdone/sending very wrong signals.
Did you accidentally leave out foreshadowing, or were the clues not clear enough? A red herring is good, but you also need things that direct the reader onto the right track. Were readers looking for something that you prefer to keep off-screen? Then you need to signal it another way, or reconsider if that should be the climax at all? Would a different conflict and resolution work better? In my case, the most obvious beats led to a very different genre, one that would require a lot of reworking of the story in order to fit. I’d not thought of the story in that light, so I missed those beats and the pattern I’d accidentally set up. I ended up reworking some things, clarifying two relationships, and pouring in a lot more foreshadowing in order to be sure that readers were not, oh, expecting roasted chicken on mashed potatoes and being served a lovely venison roast with forest mushrooms.
Alpha Readers are the people who have a lot of experience and who you turn to for a first read, especially if something feels “off” to you. Beta readers are another set of eyes, after the big problems (if any) are fixed. Not everyone sees the same thing, or looks for the same flaws and problems. I know some folks who can spot a grammar error at 50 feet, but miss a structural problem. Others can track plot threads through a blizzard at midnight, but are not good at finding Misspellings Of Unusual Size.
In the past, I have asked readers to let me know if they think something is not flowing, or seems too rushed, or drags. Once, a chorus of “yes, there’s a scene missing it feels like,” confirmed my hunch, and gave me ideas on how to fix it. Another time, everyone said, “It flows fine, and [plot thread] makes perfect sense.”
If you are dealing with certain odd things, or you know that you have not checked something or are using a word in a not-current-standard way, let your editor/outside readers know. It saves frustration all around. (See the discussion about “is it archaic or dialect and can I leave it alone?” from last week’s post.)
A wise writer makes notes of what his/her/its readers and editors say, and weighs them carefully. One flag, perhaps two, and it might be worth changing, or perhaps not. Four or five, or everyone who looks at the story raises the same question? Then the writer had better take a deep breath and see what, precisely, is the problem, or has been left uncertain. In my case, readers familiar with my habits have flagged the return of my word-overuse tic.
Good outside readers are worth their weight in their favorite chocolate or adult bevaredge, as they prefer. Even having a second set of eyes to catch the ever-wily tyop can improve things greatly.
Mad Genius Club 
7 responses to “Alpha, Beta, Readers and the Writer”
Good alpha and beta readers are treasures. Unfortunately, they don’t come as an off-the-shelf, easily-purchasable package. Instead, like good friends, they take years to make…
So the best time to start was always 5 years ago, and the second-best time is now.
Scarily enough, one of the softwares that is supposed to help clean up your drafts has added ai personas as alpha readers.
I’ve used Claude to spot plot holes or dropped threads. Many times it’s seen problems that are not problems, or flagged the cliffhangers I’ve left for the sequel(s). But just as often, it identifies legitimate problems or suggest a hole that I can have in the back of my mind when I am writing the next chapter.
YMMV, of course.
I do this thing sometimes where I have Claude do dictation cleanup, and then I bring the version I did final cleanup and expansion on back into the chat with Claude and ask for thoughts and suggestions (sometimes with my general ideas about where I’m going next). Sometimes it picks up on awkward phrasing or continuity issues, and sometimes it doesn’t, as you say. I could probably get it to larp as a particular genre reader (like what the one company was bragging about having its software do) if I put my mind to it.
They are far more likely to be right about whether there is a problem than what the problem is. And also far more likely to be right about what the problem is than what the proper solution is.
Wise to remember that when you are on the reader side. I once got a critique that correctly said that something was not clear, guessed wrong about the possbilities, and spent the 90% of the critique discussing how I could do something I didn’t want to do
I would be in so much trouble without mine! I don’t know how they even see the things they spot. But they’re right 99% of the time. And I always think carefully about the other 1%.
I’m a corporate writer by day and we use three review passes not dissimilar to alpha and beta readers.
The first pass is essentially the Alpha read conducted by one of my fellow writers on the team. They provide that basic gut check for structural problems in the draft. (Does this make sense? Will it give the reader what they need?)
The second pass is with the subject matter expert who looks for anything technically inaccurate. Not far off from a Beta reader who may point out details that don’t belong, don’t make sense, or are missing.
The final pass is for quality assurance. This is the extra set of eyes to find any final writing mistakes (grammar, punctuation, adherence to the style guide, etc.) So basically, a copyedit.
I can’t tell you how valuable I’ve found these review processes to be over the years.