In nonfiction, you have that limitation, that constraint, of telling the truth.
I'm working on a nonfiction book on Nepal and a novel about diasporas.
I used to distinguish between my fiction and nonfiction in terms of superiority or inferiority.
I have written two nonfiction books, I'm embarrassed to say.
But with nonfiction, the task is very straightforward: Do the research, tell the story
I like nonfiction books about people with wretched lives.
In Bosnian, there's no distinction in literature between fiction and nonfiction; there's no word describing that.
I love making fiction films as well as nonfiction ones, and hope to keep challenging myself to make better and better work.
I like to get paid for doing basic research, so it's pleasant to write some nonfiction about it.
I tend to read more nonfiction, really, because when I'm writing I don't like to read other fiction.
It's hard to do fiction and nonfiction simultaneously.
I read the same amount of nonfiction and fiction.
There's no division on my bookshelf between fiction and nonfiction. As far as I'm concerned, fiction is about the truth.
There is always a certain leap of faith that editors have made with their nonfiction writers. If the trust is broken, things can get very embarrassing for the writers and the publisher.
I've seen a lot of the United States, having stayed in so many different cities and towns for work.
Ironically, in today's marketplace successful nonfiction has to be unbelievable, while successful fiction must be believable.
I don't actually have a one wellspring of inspiration. Though I'm most often inspired while reading - both fiction and nonfiction.
Ah, well, I have no talent for nonfiction, that's my problem.
I enjoy doing the research of nonfiction; that gives me some pleasure, being a detective again.
The difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction must be absolutely believable.