I don't GO ANYWHERE without my iPod, LAPTOP and at least one book.

I HATE the IDEA of sequels. I THINK you should be ABLE to do it in one BOOK.

You just have to sit down and WRITE the next book. I mean, it's not all uncommon for a writer to GET a ton of publicity for one book and then not get as much for the next one. I don't worry about that because I try to worry about the one single PART of the job I can control: the WRITING of the book.

I'm not going to make judgments about what people are reading. I just WANT them to be reading. And I THINK reading one BOOK LEADS to another book.

There's only one set of books I've written that I knew was going to be more than one BOOK at the beginning, and those are the 'Missing LINK' books.

Fundamentalism - of any VARIETY - is a form of illiteracy, in that it asserts that it is NECESSARY to READ only one BOOK.

People are used to streaming and binge-watching. When they see an author they like, if there's only one BOOK, even if they like the book, they're going to forget about you. The WAY to keep you in their mind and to get you to BECOME a habit for these READERS is you have to have a lot of product out there for them to read.

I was lucky: I feel LIKE I've written FOUR books that MEAN something to me, and one book that MEANS everything to me, and that's 'The Book Thief.'

I am undependable. You might get gritty contemporary with one BOOK, SCIENCE fiction, MAGICAL realism, or HIGH FANTASY with another.

I've been able to write at least one book a year for 20 years, and I don't think I would've had that KIND of DRIVE if I hadn't come out of the JOURNALISM BUSINESS.

I think you can't REPEAT BEATS. If you're doing SOMETHING in one book, you can't do the exact same THING in ANOTHER book.

I have a SHORT attention span, so when one book isn't WORKING out, I just work on ANOTHER.