A reviewer's lot is not always an easy one. I can remember flogging myself to finish Harold Brodkey's 'The Runaway Soul' despite the novel's consummate, unmitigated tedium.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't really say much about reviewers. It's a very tough job to get all of the depth of a movie all at once.
Most books reviews aren't very well-written. They tend to be more about the reviewer than the book.
Writing is exhilarating, but reading reviews is not. I've been really devastated by 'good' reviews because they misunderstand the project of the book. It can be strangely galvanising to get a 'bad' one.
A good review from the critics is just another stay of execution.
After each book, I get panicky. I don't love the reviews. I don't like going through all that, and you would think that, after almost 40 years of writing, I'd have got the hang of it.
I rarely read or buy a book because of a review.
I don't like to read reviews. Even the good ones you start to analyze: 'Oh, did I do that? I have to make sure I do that again.'
All writers are the same - they forget a thousand good reviews and remember one bad one.
Reviewers and critics can be overly cynical. If something the least bit sentimental comes up, they'll often start flying off the handle. But I'm like, 'Wait a minute, you've had those times in your life. Everybody has.'
I've always liked an easygoing, colloquial style. I like the kind of reviewer who is essentially a fellow reader, an enthusiast, a fan.