What I look for in any book is an argument, based on evidence, that changes the way I think about something important.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
A good argument, like a good dialogue, is always a proof of life, but I'd much rather go and read a book.
I've learned that I have to be happy with creating discussion and debate and that I shouldn't be trying to write a book that appeals to the consensus.
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.
Every book I've written has been a different attempt to understand something, and the success or failure of the previous one is irrelevant. I write the book I want.
When you're writing a book, you don't really think about it critically. You don't want to know too well what you're doing. First, you write the book, then you find the justification for it.
All good books have one thing in common - they are truer than if they had really happened.
It's not a case of: 'Read this book and then you'll think differently. I've written this book, and I don't think differently.
As a reader, I much prefer to read a book where people embody all kinds of ideas and everybody is making mistakes.
I've always looked upon research as an opportunity to satisfy my curiosity. But the other side of the coin is one must not be so caught up in it that one never gets the book written.
People's minds are changed through observation and not through argument.