It has always been something I could do, and it may seem odd that in my case I seem to create an interesting narrative and frustrate the reader's opportunities to follow it at every step.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I did what most writers do when something happens that's overwhelming, fascinating, moving, all of that. I didn't know what else to do about it except write about it.
Once I've discovered the story, I might restructure it, maybe move things around, set up a clue that something is going to happen later, but that happens much later in an editorial capacity.
I have no particular reader in mind, but a passionate desire to tell an honest, moving story.
My job as an author is to tell the story in the best way possible, to make it flow seamlessly and get the reader to keep turning the page.
For me as a writer, the story has always taken precedence over everything else. I have never sat down to write with broad, sweeping ideas in mind, and certainly never with a specific agenda.
I believe the most important thing you can do in any kind of novel is to make your reader want to go on with it and want to know what happens next.
It took me many years to figure out how to structure a compelling story.
Writing is a process of discovering. I could never outline a narrative; that just sounds boring. There's no joy of discovery in what you're doing if that's your strategy.
Readers have actually changed the way I've done things, changed the course of my career even, about four or five times. Just from reader feedback.
Stories surge up out of nowhere, and if they feel compelling, you follow them. You let them unfold inside you and see where they are going to lead.