Self-doubt feeds the author. Without self-doubt, we don't strive to do our best --- to keep writing despite rejections and humiliations. (See Dean Koontz, for example, who writes: "I have more self-doubt than any writer I’ve ever known. That is one reason I revise every page to the point of absurdity! The positive aspect of self-doubt – if you can channel it into useful activity instead of being paralyzed by it – is that by the time you reach the end of a novel, you know precisely why you made every decision in the narrative, the multiple purposes of every metaphor and image. Having been your own hardest critic you still have dreams but not illusions."). Self-doubt is what propels us to be better, to write better, to fixate on commas and words that most other people ignore.
I see my self-doubt as an author, writer, and general person as a good thing. Self-doubt makes me a perfectionist and perfectionism results in opportunities.
So, now, my beta readers have started reading my first book --- which I have put through so many rounds of edits that I can recall most of the sentences from it by memory --- and they keep telling me they love it. One person told me they read the entire thing in one afternoon because he couldn't put it down. This only makes me feel worse. Are they telling me these nice things to make me feel better about all the time I've spent working on it? Or, is it actually good? I have a strong feeling I am going to doubt this work until it is actually published (fingers crossed).
Where do you as an author draw the line on your own self-doubt?
