I sat down this lunchtime and worked my way through the notes on Tec provided by my readers, comparing notes - as it were.
One reason for using more than one reader is that they have different emphasis - which makes the times that they agree even more important; and when they disagree you have to be get even more analytical.
For example, the opening of Tec introduces the characters where the crime will take place, followed by the introduction of the protagonist - one reader liked it and other reader didn't. While I am not, as I've said, precious about the work I do have a clear idea as to how the story should go and a clear visualisation of the opening. So it will stay.
But the reader who liked the opening felt the future-crime-scene characters were not defined clearly enough, nor were the stakes high enough - which had bad effects later on. So, in reality, both readers were probably saying the same thing, just in a different way.
On the other hand, both pointed out the difficulty of having private investigators involved in the investigation of murders - however, as long as I can think of a reasonable justification, that doesn't have to be a major issue. One reader mentioned the TV series Vincent which did just that - now I'm wishing I'd watched it.
Having read both sets of responses in detail, the best description of Tec would be to describe it as "fuzzy" when it needs to be crystal clear.
Onwards and upwards.
What's on the turntable? "The Snow Goose" by Camel from "The Snow Goose". I am at work but with the help of Spotify I can listen to my favourite tracks. I am a total Spotify convert (http://www.spotify.com/) all the albums I'll never get around to buying (or replacing from my vinyls) they're here! And I can listen to them for free - with the occasional advert. Wonderful.