A lot of politics in art is just institutional critique, which, in my opinion, is not all that political.

I begin a book with imagery, more than I do with an idea or a character. Some kind of poetic image.

It's really a misconception to identify the writer with the main character, given that the author creates all the characters in the book. In certain ways, I'm every character.

I don't really have those kinds of intentions when I write a scene. I try to follow the internal logic of the fiction, rather than make an argument or an assertion.

I don't really see art as structured by logic.

I don't quite see the 20th century as one of chaos. But I believe in certain inevitable outcomes of a materialist nature.

As to the "traditional filler of twenty-first century realist fiction," maybe that is something I avoid. I don't relate to standard psychologizing in novels. I don't really believe that the backstory is the story you need. And I don't believe it's more like life to get it - the buildup of "character" through psychological and family history, the whole idea of "knowing what the character wants." People in real life so often do not know what they want. People trick themselves, lie to themselves, fool themselves. It's called survival, and self-mythology.