Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
BTW: the "beta reader" idea--I have authors that would kill for reliable beta readers. Beta readers are, Keryl, one of those generally-accepted, vaguely conceptualized ideas of "things that exist" that, quite bluntly, don't. Sure, if you're Dan Brown or Laurell K. Hamilton or one of those people with troos, it's easy to find beta readers; but for the average mid-lister (and that's who makes up the vast majority of publishing, folks), it's nearly impossible. Again, that's like the infamous pretty teenage girl who will come over and exercise and take care of your horse just for the love of it--they don't exist, either. And, btw: most of the beta readers are fine for plotline development, but they're not proofers. Not the same thing at all. Like test screenings--they're only looking for audience reaction, not line-by-line "edits." Beta readers tell the authors (like Charlaine Harris) that they like this plotline, don't like this development, etc.--but they don't proof.
|
As I believe I said, it would be easier for the popular authors.
However, back in the day (this being the late 90's) I lived in and among the English Majors/Writing MFA candidates, and they were all dying for some sort of in with publishing houses. I'd think being able to put proof reader/beta reader on the CV would be a start in the right direction, but I could be wrong. Maybe, with this job market they've got so many better opportunities they just can't be fussed to build a CV. Maybe they no longer care about being more competitive than the next English Lit MA. Or maybe Random House is too damn stuck in it's ways to put an ad on Craig's List looking for Beta Readers.
I'm as low down on the publishing list as you can get. I'm a one person operation with a less than shoestring budget and I can find beta readers. Are they all great? No. Do they combined provide me with a cleaner copy than I could get on my own? Yes.
Midlisters are midlisters because they've got fans. Maybe not tons of them, but a decent enough number to make churning out more books worthwhile. Get ten of them to give the ebook version a once over to catch the nasty bits, and your final product might not be perfect, but it will be better.
Since we're talking ebooks, it's not like this is prohibitively expensive. Each additional copy of the base document costs them nothing. Advertising for betas doesn't have to cost much either. (For midlisters a note on the facebook page/blog/website should suffice.) Putting the final corrections into the proof can be farmed off onto the author. It will make the books take longer to put out. How much adding an additional month or two to the publication schedule costs, I don't know. I do know that many authors get their book finished months before it hits shelves.
I know this technique works on the micro scale. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for why it can't be ramped up to the macro scale.