The ultimate judgment of a work of art, whether it be a masterpiece or a lesser event, must be solely in terms of its artistic success and not on Freudian guesswork.

There are only two things to write about: life and death.

When one controls form, one doesn't do it with a stopwatch or a graph. One does it by sensing, again intuitively.

If I've been accused a number of times of writing plays where the endings are ambivalent, indeed, that's the way I find life.

To a certain extent I imagine a play is completely finished in my mind - in my case, at any rate - without my knowing it, before I sit down to write.

If the work of art is good enough, it must not be criticized for its theme. I don't think it can be argued.

When a critic sets himself up as an arbiter of morality, a judge of the matter and not the manner of a work, he is no longer a critic; he is a censor.