There's a unique bond of trust between readers and authors that I don't believe exists in any other art form; as a reader, I trust a novelist to give me his or her best effort, however flawed.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
When there's writing that you really trust, it's very freeing as an artist.
In this choice, as I look back over more than half a century, I can only follow - and trust - the same sort of instinct that one follows in the art of fiction.
I feel that historical novelists owe it to our readers to try to be as historically accurate as we can with the known facts. Obviously, we have to fill in the blanks. And then in the final analysis, we're drawing upon our own imaginations. But I think that readers need to be able to trust an author.
I know that it's axiomatic in the film industry that you're not supposed to let the novelist develop their own story. Well, first of all, that's kind of up to the novelist - because they don't have to sell it. But also, I don't believe it. It's about trust.
You should trust any man in his own art provided he is skilled in it.
I don't trust anybody that doesn't do good work. I don't give them any credibility. If they can't write, why should I believe anything they have to say?
As an author, I really hate a reader like me. There's no loyalty.
Never trust the artist. Trust the tale. The proper function of the critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it.
People shouldn't trust artists and they shouldn't trust art. Part of the fun of art is that it invites you to interpret it.
I would say readers can trust my work more than anyone else's.