The verdict of pre-submit number two: fast read, a little rough in few spots, one character needs less personality. Estimated percent done on a scale of zero to one hundred: eighty-five. While less effusive in their praise than the first reader, that’s understandable. Reader number two comes to the page with a more seasoned eye and a background in publishing. Better to hear it from someone in the biz than not hear it at all, and wonder what happened.

The problem of managing all this feedback quickly revealed itself. Eight readers times three-hundred and fifty-two pages is an unruly mash of loose paper. Working through each pile eight times seemed a bad idea. That kind of brute force repetition begets mistakes, including one most disastrous: drowning out the consensus.

The more times a comment recurs, the more valid it is; I give those sort the highest priority. The problem is how to keep them in view throughout the revision process. Reader one, two and five might agree the same character needs fine-tuning, but yours truly might miss the connection in the paper chase.

Like usual, The Wife saved the day. Her solution for managing all these edits: work from a single master copy. Where a reader identifies a character or plot issue, record the comment on the relevant page with their initials. Corrections in grammar and punctuation remain only on their copies for later attention. This way, the overlap in feedback leaps off the page. The other plus, is the possibility of testing reader ideas on other readers. Whoever goes last in this process has the hardest task, since they will have both the manuscript, plus the feedback from the seven before them.

It’s elegant suggestions like this that make me grateful for The Wife.