(His claim that there's no distinction between high art and low art is patent tosh, and may be a clumsiness of translation; there obviously is a distinction. What he may mean is that there's no clear demarcation line, and I imagine anyone of sense would agree with him on that.)

Oops. Rereading the article, I see I've unconsciously conflated the Times reporter's (and others') summarizing with what Zafon is reported as actually having said. The claim's still a load of tosh.

And I'm still planning to read Zafon's The Angel's Game for either my next book or the one after!