Literature is my life of course but from an ontological point of view. From an existential point of view I like being a teacher.

I didn't read so much Japanese literature. Because my father was a teacher of Japanese literature I just wanted to do something else.

My literary success meant nothing to me.

There's that unwritten schism that literary writers get all the awards and commericals writers get all the success.

My father was an immigrant who literally walked across Europe to get out of Russia. He fought in World War I. He was wounded in action. My father was a great success even though he never had money. He was a very determined man a great role model.

Internationalism on the other hand admits that spiritual achievements have their roots deep in national life from this national consciousness art and literature derive their character and strength and on it even many of the humanistic sciences are firmly based.

To achieve lasting literature fictional or factual a writer needs perceptive vision absorptive capacity and creative strength.

I love the wry motto of the Paleontological Society meant both literally and figuratively for hammers are the main tool of our trade: Frango ut patefaciam - I break in order to reveal.

All literary men are Red Sox fans - to be a Yankee fan in a literate society is to endanger your life.

Not only is the self entwined in society it owes society its existence in the most literal sense.

The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal not merely a gregarious animal but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society.

If you look at the purported dangers of salt or fat there is no consensus of support in scientific literature. So I would ask first: 'Is it possible to have an informed government that actually follows the science?' From what I've seen it's not likely.

I dislike literary jargon and never use it. Criticism has only one function and that is to help readers read and understand literature. It is not a science it is an aid to art.

Change is the principal feature of our age and literature should explore how people deal with it. The best science fiction does that head-on.

Beyond that I seem to be compelled to write science fiction rather than fantasy or mysteries or some other genre more likely to climb onto bestseller lists even though I enjoy reading a wide variety of literature both fiction and nonfiction.

In science read by preference the newest works. In literature read the oldest. The classics are always modern.

Facts are not science - as the dictionary is not literature.

Gender consciousness has become involved in almost every intellectual field: history literature science anthropology. There's been an extraordinary advance.

Science and literature give me answers. And they ask me questions I will never be able to answer.

The world of science and the world of literature have much in common. Each is an international club helping to tie mankind together across barriers of nationality race and language. I have been doubly lucky being accepted as a member of both.

Everything is becoming science fiction. From the margins of an almost invisible literature has sprung the intact reality of the 20th century.

Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards.

Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always successful. All the rest is literature.

The most watched programme on the BBC after the news is probably 'Doctor Who.' What has happened is that science fiction has been subsumed into modern literature. There are grandparents out there who speak Klingon who are quite capable of holding down a job. No one would think twice now about a parallel universe.