Lots of people don't like Keith Gessen, and that's fine, but I was watching this interview with him on Youtube (skip to about 1:00 if you're interested), in which he talks about familiarity.
He says that one of the biggest criticisms of his book was that the characters felt too familiar--"we all know guys like this, so why do we need to read about them?" I think this is worth discussing. Gessen goes onto say that this is not a "valid literary criticism," although I'm not sold (of course, I'm not entirely ready to disagree with him either).
"Write what you know" has arguably become cliché, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad advice. If writing is a way of articulating one's subjective experience, then it seems to me that one ought to only write what one knows. But if writing is a way of trying to understand the experience of others, or "the other," then one might not want to "write what you know."
What are your thoughts on this, AW?
He says that one of the biggest criticisms of his book was that the characters felt too familiar--"we all know guys like this, so why do we need to read about them?" I think this is worth discussing. Gessen goes onto say that this is not a "valid literary criticism," although I'm not sold (of course, I'm not entirely ready to disagree with him either).
"Write what you know" has arguably become cliché, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad advice. If writing is a way of articulating one's subjective experience, then it seems to me that one ought to only write what one knows. But if writing is a way of trying to understand the experience of others, or "the other," then one might not want to "write what you know."
What are your thoughts on this, AW?