All writing is two-way. The reader is as much involved in the creative process as the writer. When I write a piece I try as hard as I can to make my meaning clear, but then I cast it on the winds and all sorts of things can affect the way it is heard by the audience. Everybody brings their own unique circumstances to the reading of a text. There is no such thing as a definitive text, because it is made up of words which are in and of themselves open to interpretation (if there were to be absolute precision in use of words, then there would not be a single word in the dictionary that had more than one definition).

If someone got what I said factually wrong, that would be one thing. But interpretation is quite another, and if I read a review and say: "That's not quite what I thought I was saying, but it opens up an interesting new avenue" then I am delighted. Most of the time, of course, things fall somewhere between these two.

And note, I am not talking about people who disagree with me. I am talking about people who agree with me but in ways that are curiously diverse from a strict interpretation of what I meant.

And we still come down to the simple, practical point: that book is out there. I am not going to change it, I am not going to have an opportunity to change it. It now lives on its own, stands or falls on its own. There will certainly be other essays and reviews, there may (I hope) be other books, but as far as this particular volume is concerned, I the author am dead.