You know what writers say about their long books: If I had another year, the book would be half as long.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Novels are longer than life.
Most novels, I find, are three times longer than they need to be. Very little happens, and I don't want to waste my time with them.
I'm a big believer in big books, and that doesn't necessarily mean long books.
A one-hundred-thousand-word novel might take a year or several years, and then you just come to 'The End' one day. But it takes hundreds of days to get to 'The End.' As a writer, you have to put in those hundreds of days.
If you're writing a novel, you're in a room for three or four years. There's not much coming in from the outside.
I used to think that: whenever I heard that someone had taken 10 years to write a novel, I'd think it must be a big, serious book. Now I think, 'No - it took you one year to write, and nine years to sit around eating Kit Kats.'
The thing with being on a series that runs that long is that the writers run out of things to do.
With two books a year, I don't have time for writer's block.
The book doesn't end when you finish writing it.
Well, I don't know. It's long, it's longer than both of the other books put together, so it's more ambitious. I think I get under the skin of the people a lot more than in the other books.
No opposing quotes found.