The question of manuscript changes is very important for literary criticism, the psychology of creation and other aspects of the study of literature.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The function of literature, through all its mutations, has been to make us aware of the particularity of selves, and the high authority of the self in its quarrel with its society and its culture. Literature is in that sense subversive.
Novels demand a certain complexity of narrative and scope, so it's necessary for the characters to change.
I have no illusions that my work can rouse the masses to create change, because literature simply doesn't have that power anymore in my country, if it does anywhere. But I do hope that it can be read by those who are in positions to create change, or that it can at least be part of that dialogue.
The thing about literature is that, yes, there are kind of tides of fashion, you know; people come in and out of fashion; writers who are very celebrated fall into, you know, people you know stop reading them, and then it comes back again.
A literary journal is intended to connect writer with reader; the role of the editor is to mediate.
Today there is a division between those who write about literature and those who create it. I, obviously, don't think that should be there.
I guess there is also an element of deliberate change involved. Each of my books has been, at least from my point of view, radically different from the last.
A great literary work can be completely, completely unpredictable. Which can sometimes make them very hard to read, but it gives them a great originality.
Literature is the question minus the answer.
Life develops, changes, is in motion. The forms of literature are not.