I have never known a novel that was good enough to be good in spite of its being adapted to the author's political views.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I've never felt powerful enough to write a true political novel, or deeply knowledgeable enough to draw a character like, say, Tolstoy's Prince Kutuzov.
It seems to me that you would have to write a novel on a very small, intimate scale for it not to become political.
I've been as bad an influence on American literature as anyone I can think of.
I don't see that books can be written without political context - not if they're relevant and ambitious.
It makes me nuts, the idea that if you put a political struggle at the heart of your book, then it has to be that the author - me - is trying in some way to push my views onto my readers.
The novel is a highly corrupt medium, after all - in the end the vast majority of them simply aren't that great, and are destined to be forgotten.
I don't think any good book is based on factual experience. Bad books are about things the writer already knew before he wrote them.
I can't envision an honest war novel that left war in a positive light.
I don't believe there can be a poetic novel without political consciousness. I have a strong political conscience.
It's with bad sentiments that one makes good novels.