I change my method and field of reference from book to book because I can never believe in the same thing two times running.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Each book I've done somehow finds its own unique form, a specific way it has to be written, and once I find it, I stick with it.
Then you start another book and suddenly the galley proofs of the last one come in and you have to wrench your attention away from what you're writing and try to remember what you were thinking when you wrote the previous one.
With each book you write you have to learn how to write that book - so every time, you have to start all over again.
You can never step into the same book twice, because you are different each time you read it.
I don't write the same book twice.
I really strive to bring something new to each book. I don't want to write the same book over and over again.
I didn't want to keep forcing myself to grind out book after book.
When I'm done with a book, I always give it to someone with expertise in the topic and tell them to flag all of my stupid mistakes.
I often write two books simultaneously. Usually one of them starts out as a fun experiment designed to give me a daily break from the real book I'm writing. And then that becomes a real book too.
When a new book comes out or becomes accessible in whatever form, I get it and I read it.
No opposing quotes found.