In my first post on this topic, I explored the psychological biases that cause you to doubt your skills as a writer. In this post, I explore a few inescapable aspects of the publishing industry that magnify this doubt.

Do carpenters constantly worry about the quality of their work? Do lawn care professionals need constant reassurance of their lawnmowing skills? Probably not.

Most things in life have straightforward, objective standards of excellence. It’s not hard to determine if you are a chess connoisseur, a math maestro, or a proficient pianist. But writing and art, more generally, are subjective in nature.

How you define a good writer can radically differ from how I define it. This means there are no clear standards of excellence against which to compare yourself. Sure, there are basic standards of proficiency, like rules of grammar and story structure, but as you progress into the upper bounds, the standards become fuzzier. When you receive feedback on your writing, it is often less about facts and more about individual opinions.

Since there are no clear benchmarks for excellence, writers tend to rely on poor substitutes. They judge their talent by how many stories they get published, by their book sales, by the number of positive reviews on Goodreads, or by whether they earn out their publisher’s advance (a feat that rarely happens).

None of these are an accurate indicator of writing talent and skill. Sure, hitting these marks feels good, and not hitting them feels bad, and that’s OK—you feel your feels. But they are not accurate indicators of the quality of your work and your talent as a writer, so........

© Psychology Today