If I had caused any trouble worth mentioning, you would have read about it in 'Star' magazine, which is probably why I didn't cause any trouble worth mentioning.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I had to do the book because there was an unauthorised biography which didn't tell it like it was.
'Star Wars' was something that I was definitely interested in. Whether or not I was really involved isn't something that I should probably disclose.
You shouldn't talk about yourself all the time - most of us aren't for sale. Our books are. Talk about them. It's not a question of whether or not you're fascinating on a personal level - it's that your trivia and trials might not have any connection to the tone, tenor and sense of your books.
I have never indulged our society's misguided notion that my personal life is relevant to my work, so any reporting surrounding that is necessarily hearsay, speculation or fantasy.
I struggled for a long time to get anything published.
The work itself has a complete circle of meaning and counterpoint. And without your involvement as a viewer, there is no story.
It wasn't easy navigating publicity when I started, because I grew up with 'being famous,' and I'm just not into it, and I guess defensiveness gets read into that. And I didn't get an easy ride at the beginning.
My inclination, as an old-school, classically trained journalist, is not to go with a story unless I have it hard. It's not good enough to say something based on rumors that were flying around.
So many people had been asking me to write an autobiography, or threatening to write my biography without any input from me, that I thought I'd better tell my story before other people told it for me.
I have to be careful. My readers are very detail-oriented, and if I make a mistake they'll call me on it.
No opposing quotes found.