Tip for self-doubters

[Locksmith]

I read an interesting interview with Bernard Cornwell, which I thought I'd share. In it he was talking about the time when he was starting out writing and the difficulties he had with self-doubt. Whenever he went back to something he'd written, he'd re-read it and think it was worthless.

In the end he decided to test whether he was just being overly self-critical. He took a favourite book and typed out two or three pages from the middle, folded it up and stuck it in a drawer for a couple of weeks. When he took it out again and read it, he had exactly the same thoughts as for his own work, i.e. that it was rubbish. This gave him some comfort to get over his worries and press on.

Maybe others don't have this problem, but I do occasionally get hit by the odd attack of self-doubt when I go back over work to edit and this gave me some heart. I thought I might give it a try. Not sure if anyone here has ever tried this, if so, did it work for you?

 

[Prefx]

Hmm, interesting. I have doubt all the time, even when some of my readers think it's great. I might try what you (he) said. Thanks.

 

[Culhwch]

Yeah, I'm pretty much crippled with self doubt, say, ninety-eight percent of the time. I just can't see how this can work, though. If you think it's good to start with, and then come back to it three weeks later, what's gonna have changed. My favourite novels (some by Cornwell himself) I have read over and over again, and they've never seemed 'bad'. I don't think taking a small section like this will change things. I take more heart from those novels I read and thought were great, then came back to some time later and discovered they were actually pretty dodgy (that'd be Feist, in the main part...).

 

[captaintripps]

What a terribly familiar feeling! I'll try anything once . . .

 

[Paradox 99]

I suffer from the same problem, but I think this is probably related to familiarity. As I'm so paranoid about any mistakes I might make when I'm writing I tend to read through my work over and over again and after a while it loses any impact or freshness.

I found that if I put my work away for a month or so and work on something new, the old stuff seems a bit more readable when I dig it back out again.

On the other hand, I've seen some truly atrocious writing amongst my work which really embarrasses me. Take this quote... I really couldn't believe I wrote something this lame, but I did...

"Bluntz, who seemed to be sobering up just from seeing the apparent strangeness of what he was looking at..."

I mean, come on! What the hell is that??

The point is, it took some objectivity to notice how bad it was. I hadn't actually read that chapter for quite some time. Sometimes what we right is bad (well, mine is anyway) so I think it's okay to have a little dose of self doubt, as long as it doesn't become out balanced.

 

[Green]

Yeah, I'm pretty much crippled with self doubt, say, ninety-eight percent of the time. I just can't see how this can work, though. If you think it's good to start with, and then come back to it three weeks later, what's gonna have changed. My favourite novels (some by Cornwell himself) I have read over and over again, and they've never seemed 'bad'. I don't think taking a small section like this will change things. I take more heart from those novels I read and thought were great, then came back to some time later and discovered they were actually pretty dodgy (that'd be Feist, in the main part...).

I think it's a psychological thing more than anything else. Typing out a passage from a book makes it look/feel more like something you would write yourself. And you then subconsciously label it with all the negative aspects you attribute to your own work, whatever they may be.

If you still see it as great, then chances are this isn't your problem, and it's rewrite time

I think it's akin to the blank page problem (leading to block) that some writers have. It's more in the mind than an actual problem with the writing.