When you start talking about the known knowns and the unknown unknowns, you're thrown into a crazy meta-level discussion. Do I know what I know, do I know what I don't know, do I know what I don't know I don't know. It becomes a strange, Lewis Carroll - like nursery rhyme.

It's pretty clear that fame isn't inextricably connected with merit .

The claim that everybody sees the world differently is not a claim that there's no reality. It's a different kind of claim.

I used to work as a private detective years and years ago. And my boss gave me this one very simple piece of advice about trying to figure out who to interview first in any investigation. His recommendation: Always pick the people who were fired. Pick the people who are pissed off.

I envy certain writers, because there are writers who do go into a kind of different zone, where the writing isn't controlled anymore.

If someone tells you that George Bush is not the 43rd president of the United States, they might be engaged in wishful thinking, or denial, but if they make that claim, it's either true or false! And you can assess that, regardless of whether there's an omniscient narrator, or an unreliable narrator, or it's shot in vérité, or it's manipulated, it's agitprop, whatever! It makes no difference! It's a style!

I used to say that interviewing others was perhaps the way I could stop talking and start listening. It's a kind of enforced silence.