I think a book should be judged 10 years later, after reading and re-reading it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Which is - you know, like check it out, I'm pretty young, I'm only about 40 years old. I still have maybe another four decades of work left in me. And it's exceedingly likely that anything I write from this point forward is going to be judged by the world as the work that came after the freakish success of my last book, right?
I believe one can gauge a book's impact only after about 10 years.
An idea has been running in my head that books lose and gain qualities in the course of time, and I have worried over it a good deal, for what seemed to be a paradox, I felt to be a truth.
I sometimes feel that if your book sells more than 20 years, then there's something in it that you can say, gee, I did something that endures, that's timeless.
I know in this time of great technological advancement, the idea of reading a book seems almost anachronistic, but I think it's worth preserving.
For me, as a fan, when I read book series, I tend to be the most judgmental of the last book.
It can happen that a book, unlike its authors, grows younger as the years pass.
In some ways I think it would be very dignified if I went away for twenty years and then wrote my fourth book.
I still feel, as I did when I was six or seven, that books are simply the best way to experience a story.
I don't think I've ever read an old book through from start to finish. Not after more than six months after writing it, that is.