As you suggested I have in the following disputed certain passages, trusting you will do me the justice either to modify the same or add a note in the new edition stating that I dispute,' etc.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version.
If someone is going to criticize what you've written and you believe in what you've written then you should respond.
Before we decide to trust you with this power, we ask you to stand before the public and explain your views. Justice may be blind, but it should not be deaf.
Over the course of my career, I have come to accept that some of my more provocative work courts controversy, and as an artist, I value the discourse that arises from this. I can only hope for this discourse to be informed by fact, so that whether you love my work or hate it, you give it, and me, the benefit of the truth.
If life had a second edition, how I would correct the proofs.
You have to sort of see the way that the character behaves, and what the character says and does, and claim it in the same way that you claim anything, really.
My books have contradictions all the time - and people are fine with that.
Frequently you have a clash between the more sterile letter of the law and the justice that underlies it, and I think one of the things I've been trying more or less, where it was possible, is to go with the justice rather than the letter of the law.
I should have no objection to go over the same life from its beginning to the end: requesting only the advantage authors have, of correcting in a second edition the faults of the first.
If there is a doubt, I believe that I must put myself forward and undergo the people's judgment.