I think narrators expect a high level of intimacy with their readers, and vice versa.

I had written about a small hamlet upstate, and had been called into a meeting about my story, which, as it turned out, had upset a lot of people.

I believe that we can access stories, and voices from those around us, more easily often than from our own imperfect memories.

I'm suspicious of epiphanies, because they so rarely last.

I think one's person's unlikeable is another's lovable.

I think the voice can carry a story.

One good thing the teaching has given me is the ability to read and revise my own work.

When you teach, it's sometimes necessary to consciously not write for a month or two - and then pick a time in the future to sink back in. It makes you less frustrated and more in control. I do best when I give myself breaks and come back hungry.

I'm always relearning things I thought I'd learned for good a while back.

I think the second, or outsider's, perspective can come as you layer a story. It's as though you've grabbed a secondary character and asked them, What do you make of this guy? and the hope is that the answer surprises you as the writer.

My characters tend, if wounded, to be emotionally resourceful. Often they're in that way station between when loss happens and when it can be fully comprehended. In the meantime they're fighting to get something back, and occasionally they prevail in surprising ways.

I tend to listen to my friends and family empathetically, and I try to help work through their problems from the inside. I try to adopt their thinking.

Of course I'd sometimes have characters from downstate living upstate, but it took a while for me to start writing about where I grew up.

I think writers tend to hear a different message from the ones our friends and acquaintances intend. We see what's revealed, which makes us dangerous.