I'm not over-enamored of complicated books, and wonder if it's more for the author's ego than anything else?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's weirder and more surprising than the other books. I think there are more places where it's just more reality bending, deliberately so. I think it's a lot more emotionally raw.
Every author in some way portrays himself in his works, even if it be against his will.
As an author, I realise, you're on your own. You have to do everything you can to help The Book. If I make sure people know it's out there, they can make up their own minds whether they want to read 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.
As a writer, I always try as hard as possible to get out of the way of the story, so maybe that's the most important thing my readers should know - I'm all about the story, not about the ego.
For some of us, books are intrinsic to our sense of personal identity.
Each book tends to have its own identity rather than the author's. It speaks from itself rather than you. Each book is unlike the others because you are not bringing the same voice to every book. I think that keeps you alive as a writer.
As a reader, I much prefer to read a book where people embody all kinds of ideas and everybody is making mistakes.
I know when I go and see a writer, the first thing I think to myself is, 'Are they the character in the book?' You just can't help it; it's the way people are.
Novels are a kind of experiment in selfhood, for the reader as well as for the author.
No opposing quotes found.