Write What You Know?

I think you're mostly on the money there, although I don't totally agree with writing what you read if you don't have any outside knowledge at all-- then you just end up imitating what you've already read... doing "Tolkein with a twist" as it were.

Personally, I think the "write what you know" phrase should be taken more as a warning to do adequate research on whatever topic you tackle. With the internet, there's really no excuse for NOT doing your research. Maybe writing excellent fantasy involves reading some classical mythology and researching myths of other cultures. My WIP required me to do a lot of research on drug addiction before I could accurately portray my character.

When I was in college, I wrote a book about people in their thirties and forties. My creative writing teacher barely even looked at it, and told me "maybe you should write about people your own age." I thought, now that's a total crock. If I have a 70-year-old character, I'm supposed to wait until I'm 70 to write my book, just so I know what it's like? Going down that road is pointless because if you take it to the logical conclusion it means you can't write anything except for what you are experiencing yourself... which would have us all producing thinly disguised biographies! This attitude assumes that, as human beings, we are essentially incapable of empathizing or identifying with others. I think that's false. As a writer, I have to trust that I am perceptive enough to extrapolate, from the 40 year olds that I know, what it is like to be 40.

And isn't that what writing is all about? Putting yourself in someone else's shoes? That's one of the things I love the most about the craft-- how it gives you insights into the way other people think and behave.

I liked my high school English teachers. We never did creative writing in class though.
When I started my last book, a lightbulb went off over my head and I fully understood the phrase "write what you know." The mismatched and odd archive of information that lives in my head finally had a purpose in my novel. It created and furnished the world, and seeped into my characters.
I too put little bits of myself into some of my characters, while other characters have none of me.
For example, one character has a trait of mine: she likes to play field hockey, even though she is not very good, mainly because a girl seldom has the opportunity to run around with a large wooden club and that is fun.

When I heard "Write about what you know, I took it to mean that instead of writing about sky diving, if you've never done it, write about something about which you are familiar. I don't think it means to write about yourself but to write about what you know something about. I know something about relationshipsso I tend to write about relationships. If I felt passionate about featuring skydiving in a novel, I would probably feel the need to take skydiving lessons first and talk to skydiving experts, otherwise I would sound stilted and it just wouldn't ring true. I think if you write about what you don't know, you should first make it your business to find out enough about it so that you do know it.

jpsorrow said:

Write What You Know

Everyone at some point during their beginning writing career (usually in high school or earlier) will hear the phrase, “Write What You Know.” I know I heard it, and then the teacher tried to explain what it meant, and of course they got it all wrong. So I decided, now that I’ve been writing for a while, to try to explain what I think it means, and then I want to ask everyone else out there what they think it means as well.

The teacher that brought this up started with the explanation that your characters should essentially be you, which is totally wrong. What I think they meant, but couldn’t clarify, is that you should place little pieces of yourself in your characters to bring them to life. So if you love fishing, perhaps your characters can love fishing as a hobby as well. It might even have something to do with the plot of the novel, but it doesn’t have to. Simply having that hobby gives the character extra dimension, which is how the character becomes more real. I agree with this and have discussed it before in more depth, so won’t say anything else about that here. But I don’t think that’s the whole story.

I think it means that you should write what you READ. In other words, you should write what you are the most intimately familiar with. If you read tons and tons of fantasy, then you probably enjoy fantasy, and so you should try to write fantasy. Because not only do you already know what’s out there and what has been done before, but you’re probably familiar enough with it that you know how to write something similar but with a twist. You know the genre so well that you can create something “new” to the genre, something that has your own voice and your own ideas, that’s similar enough, but different enough, that it will stand out. If you aren’t familiar with the genre, it’s likely that you’ll just produce something that’s been done before. You’ll use all the tropes and all the plot twists that have essentially become cliché in that genre, instead of taking those clichés and twisting them around somehow to make them different. If you find you read tons of mysteries, then you know all about red herrings and plot twists and you probably have read enough that you’re wondering why no one has ever written about a book where such and such happens. Which is where you pick up your pen or laptop and write a book where such and such happens.

So I think that the common phrase is wrong, we shouldn’t write what we KNOW, we should write what we READ. It’s what you love, it’s what you’re familiar with, and it’s likely that it will be what you’re passionate about. And getting your passion into the novel is half of what brings the novel to life.

******

So what was everyone else's experience with high school English teachers? Obviously, most of mine discouraged me from writing what I really wanted to write (fantasy and science fiction . . . basically genre fiction) and tried to get me to write personal narratives and other "literary" forms. I hated it. I only had one teacher who actually encouraged me to just write, whatever I felt like, and gave me good feedback on whatever it happened to be. She's the one that put me on the road to getting published. (I'd like to hear that it's changed in school, but I'm afraid that is hasn't.)

Click to expand...

One of the comments I hear repeatedly - and negatively - regarding first novels is that they're too autobiographical, and therefore too subjective. Pieces of oneself in characters makes some sense, but the touch should be light. Some of my characters, the Bad Guys, I would dislike intensely in person, but some of my evil tendencies do appear in them. You know, the mental fantasy stuff you would never confess to anyone.

As for writing what one knows, I'll use murder as an example. No, don't go out and commit one, but try to imagine how it feels from all sides - the killer, the killee, the investigator, the gawking by-standers, the friends, the family. Is anyone going to *know* all that? Of course not. (Or so we hope.) But we can imagine it, and that's what makes us writers.

One should, however, find out the impact of a bullet or a blade or a claw in a certain part of the body, even if it's only mentioned in passing in the book - or not mentioned at all. Please, don't try this at home.

Embrace the Internet.

janetbellinger said:

When I heard "I think if you write about what you don't know, you should first make it your business to find out enough about it so that you do know it.

Click to expand...

That's true. You can write anything you want to, but first you should learn as much as you can about the field you are going to write about. It's not necessary to make it your business, but it would be helpful to know someone who does.

I don't think it's necessary to only write in your favorite genre to read. My favorite things to read are romance and horror (I know, odd combination), but I write fantasy. Now I have read some fantasy, but frequently find it too plot driven. I like romance because it's almost always character driven. I like reading horror because, well, monsters are cool. What you read certainly will influence what you write, and my fantasy ended up having heavy elements of both horror and romance. I don't think I ended up with many fantasy clichés accidentally (according to one of my beta readers, who is an avid fantasy reader). When clichés do show up I'm aware of it, and my characters tend to make fun of it.

As for writing what you know, if I took out all the things I haven't personally experienced, I doubt I'd have more than ten pages left out of three-hundred. Believe it or not, I've never ridden a dragon, or met a sorceress, or sailed a tall ship through forty-foot seas. I've never even killed anyone or been attacked by a pack of hungry monsters. Shocking, isn't it? After all, these are such common life experiences.

Seriously, though, research is important. I spent many hours online researching early 20th century weapons, along with sailing ships and steam ships. This coming Friday I'm going to Baltimore to go day sailing on a real tall ship. When I was world building I used a lot of what I already knew of planetary science, and used my Mom's knowledge of ecology to build a viable ecosystem. My Dad was shocked to discover I suddenly knew more about revolvers than he did. Advanced study of psychology is always handy with character building too.

So do know about what you're writing, but it's ridiculous to expect people to only write what they've experienced themselves. That's a biography, not fiction.

Know

Write what you know means both factual information on things such as skydiving, and using the people you know to build realistic characters.

The first part is easy. If you don't know something, learn it, and then write about it.

But the smartest thing any writer can do is use the background they have, the location where they were raised, and all the people they've known as the basis for good setting and characters.

Reading in your genre is a good and necessary thing. So is reading outside your genre.

But write what you know means a lot more than this. No matter how many tropes you learn, you still have to have a realistic setting, and you still need 3-D characters who step off the page.

I suspect a lot of writers just don't think the place where they live is exotic enough for fiction, or that the people they've known are right for fiction. The truth is just the reverse. The best setting for fiction is a place you know better than anyone, and the best people are all those you've known, be they parents, teachers, neighbors, police officers, etc.

A local mechanic. for instance, can, with just a bit of tweaking, become a starship engineer.

Write what you read is very good advice, but write what you know is also important. It's usually pretty easy to spot a writer who's trying to fake it, who's using a location they just don't know well enough, or who builds characters simply by reading books that contain other fictional characters.

I suspect a lot of writers just don't think the place where they live is exotic enough for fiction, or that the people they've known are right for fiction. The truth is just the reverse. The best setting for fiction is a place you know better than anyone, and the best people are all those you've known, be they parents, teachers, neighbors, police officers, etc.

Click to expand...

I've thought this for years. I mean, My God, I get up, go to work, I've lived in this area since High School. I know the streets, the neighboring cities, the bars, the local fast food hang outs. Nothing Ever Happens.

And then I thought back, and I thought about local stories. I thought about local legends. I went to the library and did some research.

Holy Crap are there a lot of stories out there. I mean, I lean toward Horror and Fantasy (once again, because that is what I read), and I still found things that were just juicing for a story.

James is right, you just have to look around.

Write what you know:

I think of it like this... don't jump in the deep end of the pool if you don't know how to swim. Take some lessons first, learn the basics, and then you can start swimming freestyle.


Although, I do have to say it's really fun pulling things out of my arse and making them believable

Unfortunately we didn't have creative writing classes in high school, or not that I remember. I do remember that one class let us write some fiction, but it was only one short assignment and we moved on to something else afterwords, like interpreting poetry or something. Most of my high school writing assignments were research papers.

Jamesaritchie said:

I suspect a lot of writers just don't think the place where they live is exotic enough for fiction, or that the people they've known are right for fiction. The truth is just the reverse. The best setting for fiction is a place you know better than anyone, and the best people are all those you've known, be they parents, teachers, neighbors, police officers, etc.

Click to expand...

For me, this is not true. I have one novel set in my hometown, and that was literally one of the hardest things I have ever written. Why? Because I was almost TOO familiar with the people and places. I had way too much info and I had difficulty sorting through what was important and what was me just wanting to describe things that I liked about my town. The people kept turning into caricatures based on what I thought of them rather than three-dimensional people.

For me, it's easier to write about a place that I am not so familiar with-- something that forces me to pick and choose and also do the research. For example, I am familiar with San Francisco, but I have never lived there. I know all the major landmarks and some hole-in-the-wall restaurants. This would be a great setting for me, because I can take the broad outlines and then add in only what I need for the story through research.

Maybe this is just because I can't stand fiction where the PLACE takes over the book. I am interested in people and plot, not setting.

I am a huge fan of research. I've done hours and hours of research on mythology for my WIP and...well I enjoyed it. I think of "write what you know" weirdly...I mean I understand it in the life experience way but also in an emotional way, like the unique way each of us feels and expresses emotions, and you can't imitate someone else's expression or even feeling and still be totally honest. I like to think that helps with the whole "voice" thing.

JN: I don't see how familiarity of place would take over the human condition. I don't see how familiarity of place would hamper a writer.

Rich said:

JN: I don't see how familiarity of place would take over the human condition. I don't see how familiarity of place would hamper a writer.

Click to expand...

I explained it above. If you don't get it, then clearly it's not a problem for you. I'm just saying, it's an issue for me. Probably not for most people, though.

True, I don't get it.

True

Taniray said:

That's true. You can write anything you want to, but first you should learn as much as you can about the field you are going to write about. It's not necessary to make it your business, but it would be helpful to know someone who does.

Click to expand...

I don't get that, either.

Hope To The Horizon said:

My favorite things to read are romance and horror (I know, odd combination)

Click to expand...

Based on my past relationships, these things go together quite often. Too often.

A lot of food for thought on this thread, and it's made me think.

OK, we know we don't have to be a murderer to write a thriller/suspense novel. And when I think about it, almost anyone could come up with quite a realistic plot in most genres. But when it coms to characterisation, that is I think another thing. We have to somehow understand the psychology of our characters, and we most likely need to be able to draw on life experience to do that. If we don't have, to some degree at least, some intimate knowledge of that kind of character there will be a very big tendency to create flat characters.

Can I give a specific example that I've seen someone attempt more than once? A writer, well intentioned, decides for some reason to write a book with an anti-drug theme. But although they might have been motivated by tragedy they've seen, they don't really understand the psychology of addiction or recovery. So what they write is really a moralising yarn with very black and white "naughty druggies", "bad drugs", but hallelujah "good boy, they reformed" sort of characters. But in reality the psychology of addiction is very complex. Anthony Keidis of The Chilis, in his book Scar Tissue, explains at the end (he is at this point a recovered addict) the meaning of a line "I don't believe it's bad" in their famous song "Otherside". Despite the fact that it nearly killed him, he doesn't regard addiction as "bad". It's what it is, yes often tragic, but he can still see what he liked about it and why it was so tempting. He can see all of the shades of gray.

I've just picked one example, but I think it illustrates the danger of straying from "what we know". And I see that primarily as the psychology of our characters. Especially main characters. If we aren't well acquainted, we need to do a lot of good research. And on that subject... we need to watch technical accuracy. I recall seeing a story where a character "was so out of it on LSD that they faked out, went to sleep." Sorry, but credibiity totally collapses at that point, because if there is one characteristic of that drug above any other... you as sure as hell don't go to sleep while tripping. OK, if that's a minor character, easily fixed... but if an MC is riddled with this kind of inaccuracy.. maybe time for a rethink as to whether it's really one's forte.

I'm just trying to illustrate by one perhaps trite example, what my own (and perhaps fairly uninformed) opinion is. But a fascinating topic, and I like the opinions I see above. More that I'm learning from everyone on AW.

There are a lot of pious phrases like around the arts and people nod their heads at them even though anybody with any experience knows they are loopy.
(One of my favorites is "Learn to see like a camera", when what you're really doing is learning to make a camera see like you.)

And same here, the reverse is true. "Know what you write". Hard to poke holes in that one, huh?

If you think about, the WWYK saw would mean never having to do any research, wouldn't it?

I tend to take write what you know as write what you understand. You need to have a feeling for what you're writing, an understanding of genre and character. Without that internalization, it becomes flat and uninteresting.

I only write what I don't know when I know the rest of the world doesn't know what I'm writing.

Therefore, I seldom do it.