Quotes About Readers

I know I'm going to lose a lot of readers over this, and I don't care: 'Garfield' is overrated. I have always felt this, even as a child. That dumb man and his dumb, mean cat have gotten more of our attention than they deserve.

The moral courage required to hold a different view and to press it upon irritated readers or unsympathetic listeners remains everywhere in short supply.

Each novel is a message in a bottle cast into the great ocean of literature from somewhere else (even if it was written and published last week in your home town); and what makes the novel available to its readers is not shared values or beliefs or experiences but the human capacity to conjure new worlds in the imagination. A fully realized novel provides readers with everything they need for their imaginations to go to work.

seem to have a very wide spectrum of readers in this country," I said.

Why are we smiling when we loathe each other?' 'Why do we sell happiness to the readers of this magazine when we are profoundly unhappy ourselves, the slaves of fame?

It's surprising that readers don't see challenging writing as morally hazardous, when it might be pushing the same kinds of boundaries as art does.

I'd like to emphasize that when a reader finishes a great novel, he will immediately begin looking for another. If someone loves your book, it increases the chance that he or she will look at mine. So there is no competition between writers. Another writer's success helps build a larger readership for all of us.

All successful writers use resonance to enhance their stories by drawing power from stories that came before, by resonating with their readers' experiences, and by resonating within their own works.

The thing that I think a lot of us forget is that part of the fault is the books . . . you get this sort of cycle that as they become less important commercially they begin protecting their egos by talking more and more to each other and establishing themselves as this kind of tight cloistered world that doesn't really have anything to do with regular readers.

The big thing that makes Dostoevsky invaluable for American readers and writers is that he appears to possess degrees of passion, conviction, and engagement with deep moral issues that we-here, today-cannot or do not permit ourselves.

Newspapers need provocative headlines to entice readers, but they were right to feature the U.S. devaluation. It was the second time in fourteen months that the dollar had been devalued after remaining stable at thirty-five dollars since 1934.

Lionel whispered because he was under the impression that it was out of respect for books, not consideration for readers.

They go in not because they need any certain volume but because they feel that there may be some book that needs them.

Among the letters my readers write me, there is a certain category which is continuously growing, and which I see as a symptom of the increasing intellectualization of the relationship between readers and literature.

Books were something that happened to readers. Readers were the victims of books.

It was readers that needed to be protected, he thought. Books were something that happened to readers. Readers were the victims of books.

I've lived on royalties all my life. It is the readers who have supported me.

Just letting readers know that I have written some works under Linda Chaffee Taylor (Chaffee was my maiden name, and that is where you will find my main profile) and Linda K. Taylor (middle initial). I can't figure out how to get Goodreads to combine, but if you want to find all my books, go to the author profile for Linda Chaffee Taylor. And thanks for reading and supporting.

To me there's no difference between writing YA and adult except that in YA I make the book a little shorter and the protagonists are teens. The difference is in the readers.

The only real reason for self-referencing is the fun factor. It's fun for the writer, getting little peeks at what old characters might be up to. And it's fun for readers to spot a familiar face, or pick up on a made-up book title or something from an earlier story. I don't know that it does -- or even should -- contribute to the story in hand being any better than it would have been without it.

My theory about writing is that one should write books you'd like to read, but no one else has written yet. So, as long as I stick with that, I'm entertaining myself, and then hopefully my readers as well. I hope to god I realize that I'm repeating myself, if I ever do. But if I don't, I'm sure my readers will let me know.

Labels don't mean much to me one way or another -- except when they close the minds of potential readers. I'd much rather we do away with genres and simply file everything under fiction. I know it can work -- one of my favourite record stores (Waterloo Music in Austin) simply files everything alphabetically and no one seems to have much problem finding what they're looking for.

They weren't bad books. They were books that you didn't enjoy. It's not the same thing at all. The only bad books are books that are so badly written that no one will publish them. Any book that has been published is going to be a "good book" for someone.

The only bad books are books that are so badly written that no one will publish them. Any book that had been published is going to be a 'good book' for someone