It puzzles me when writers say they can't read fiction when they're writing fiction because they don't want to be influenced. I'm totally open to useful influence. I'm praying for it.
I created Batman about 10 years before Ian Fleming created James Bond.
Fiction writers are strange beasts. They are, like all writers, observers first and foremost. Everything that happens to and around them is potential material for a story, and they look at it that way.
I don't generally read a lot of fiction.
My writing of fiction comes under a very general heading of those teachers, critics, scholars who like to try their own hand once or twice in their lives.
Being a writer of fiction isn't like being a compulsive liar, honestly.
I find that nonfiction writers are the likeliest to turn out interesting novels.
I believe some people are just too damn smart to write fiction.
There are few writers who, if they publish anything, I am going to buy it: Ian McEwan, Scott Turow, Pat Conroy - he was a buddy of mine and I always read his stuff. Also: Harlan Coben, Elmore Leonard, John Le Carre, but he's pushing ninety.
I read a lot of short fiction, like Kurt Vonnegut and Raymond Carver and Wells Tower.
Stephen King, by far, is the standard-bearer. I think anyone who writes suspense fiction and says that King isn't an influence is either lying or being foolish. I read his book 'On Writing' before I read pretty much any of his fiction.
I grew up reading Stephen King, Peter Straub, Clive Barker, Robert McCammon, Isaac Asimov's nonfiction books, and Roald Dahl.
Pushing the boundaries of polite society does not just fall under the purview of crime fiction authors.
In fiction, if people like one of your books, they tend to pick up your other books as well.
My favourite authors are Milan Kundera and Jeanette Winterson.
