Write what you know?

Instead of "write what you know," the maxim should be "know what you write."

A little research can go a long way.

It's still a pretty darn handy rule, particularly when writing nonfiction.

Becoming an expert in any field, whether it's through experience or research, will get your material read more closely by editors. Quite often, a writer's day job or hobby will provide the raw material for their first published writings.

Confidence is a big part of succeeding in any endeavor and writing is no exception. So, writing about a subject in which you're well-versed makes sense on many levels.

The more you know about your subject matter, be it fiction or non-fiction, the more convincing your writing will be. If you have to stretch to grasp the concepts, or try to get away with faking it, it's going to be noticed. As soon as the reader senses you don't know what you're talking about, you lose them. They may continue reading, but they won't take what you say seriously.

"Write what you know" is good advice, but it doesn't mean you need to only write about what you already know. If you wander into murky waters, either do the necessary research to navigate your way through them successfully or abandon that route and try another, more familiar path.

I agree with Jamie. It can go either way--write what you know, OR learn about what you plan to write.

Blue, in terms of fiction (which admittedly, I only dabble in) I believe the adage can be interpreted to mean: "Write what you can identify with." I could create a character completely the opposite of myself, on the surface, but if I can identify with her primary need, I "know" enough to write the story.

That shouldn't be interpreted as an excuse to make every character exactly like yourself, either. When writers start leaning on that crutch, they probably would do well to toss out the rule with yesterday's garbage.

For new writers, especially, writing what you know (as Eraser said) can give you the confidence you may need to get started writing at all. If you start with a familiar topic, you won't get bogged down in details and fact-checking and worrying if the story is realistic. It is a great way to start.

In non-fiction, writing what you know CAN cut down on research time. On the other hand, I love learning new things through my writing. To write only what I know would quickly get boring to me.

Eraser, I certainly see your point in how being an established expert in a field can help you get published, but it shouldn't stop people from tackling a subject they enjoy and don't know a lot about. "Write what you can learn," are good words to live by, too.

While it shouldn't be absolutely ignored ( do research till your eyes bleed), remember that you can write about something you haven't personally experienced ( or we'd have no fantasy / sci fi for a start)


I've never stabbed anyone, but I've written about a woman who does, and I can imagine what I think it would feel like to her. Knowing people is the most important part, IMO. Everything else can be researched.

Research does go a long way. Personally, I hate research for the most part, so I only write about places I've been. It still takes some research but I've been to, say, Colorado dozens of times, so I can use it as a setting far easier than I can Ireland, which is someplace I've never been. I'm lazy so the less research for me the better.

Blue, in terms of fiction (which admittedly, I only dabble in) I believe the adage can be interpreted to mean: "Write what you can identify with."

Click to expand...

That was pretty much what I was going to say. With fiction you have to write something you're familiar with. That doesn't mean you have to avoid writing sci-fi just because you don't live in the 30th century (which is the way this line is frequently interpreted by younger writers hearing it from teachers/older writers). It means you have to have an understanding of what you're writing about.

I saw a guy on another forum once pitch a comic book outline in which the moon had stopped orbiting around the Earth and this meant that it was constant day on one side of the planet and constant night on the other. That's a complete unfamiliarity with his subject and made the rest of his outline (which was pretty awful anyway) seem unbelievable because it was obvious he hadn't spent enough time working on the idea to even understand why we have night and day on the surface of our planet.

You don't have to be an expert on a subject to write about it (even in fiction) but you do have to be willing to put some effort into it.

The same holds true with characters. If the author is a genuinely happy person who has never lost anything important in their life they are (probably) going to have a difficult time writing about a drug addict who has been a loser since birth. That doesn't mean they won't ever be able to write that character, just that it will take more work to learn how to identify with something that is very much unknown to them.

So, yes. You should always write what you know or be willing to learn what you need to in order to know what you're writing about.

I always joke that if I took everything I haven't personally experienced out of my second novel, I'd be left with about 10 pages. To me, the whole point of writing (or reading) is to vicariously experience things I never have and probably never will experience in real life. I do huge amounts of research, though. The sorts of mental problems in many of my books are things I've been researching since I was in middle school and I went as far as driving to Baltimore and going sailing aboard a real tall ship for my fantasy series. I enjoy learning new things and doing the necessary research (well, usually, at least). I probably couldn't write historical fiction, though, because all my fantasy writing has very deeply ingrained me in the habit of changing facts to be more interesting but still realistic. I've always believed that you have to know how something works on Earth before you can start altering it to be 'fantastic', though.

If we all just wrote what we knew, most of us would be doomed to write very boring books. I prefer 'write what you understand'.

IdiotsRUs said:

I've never stabbed anyone, but I've written about a woman who does, and I can imagine what I think it would feel like to her. Knowing people is the most important part, IMO. Everything else can be researched.

Click to expand...

That's the most important part of the saying for me--because it's true, everything but emotions, everything but human nature can be researched. "Writing what you know" is all about knowing people.

I agree, that while I haven't experienced the things my characters experience, I can draw on some of my own knowledge in regards to people, their reactions, places, etc. And i can fill in the blank with a quick google search or trip to the library.
Just remember, Blue, that at the point that your readers feel you don't know what you're talking about, you break the writer/reader trust. Like poker, if they think you're bluffing, and they figure out your tell, you're going to lose.
Because so much of what I write is character-driven, all I really need to know is people - I need to know my characters.

Do you think "Write what you know" should be ignored or is it taken too literally?

Click to expand...

You've loaded this question. it can't be answered in these terms.
should it be ignored or is it taken too literally?


Don't ignore it. Use it as a guide to know when you need to research.


One of my good friends is writing a book. He said he always wanted to write one, and after reading On Writing by Stephen King, he decided it was time.

so "Write what you know" was a thing he had to work with from the King book. He wrote about a man that was in the same line of business as he was in so he automatically knows the ins and outs of business, but the man discovers that the business is just a front for an agency of wrong-doings. My friend goes to Canada frequently, so when his character needs an escape, he goes to Canada. He knows those things. They are his starting points. Everything else, he fills in. There's a confidence you can gain by writing about things you know, readers can see it.

Jodi Picoult had a great article in the June 07 Writer's Digest about this topic. Some writers live drama-free lives. What's a writer to do?

I have a link:

http://www.writersdigest.com/articles/picoult_the_fact_behind_fiction.asp

It's a good credo to live by but it shouldn't be taken literally all of the time. I have a tendency to write about big cities, whether it's New York itself or an unnamed city that remsembles New York. I do that because I'm really familiar with the city itself. I also know New England back roads and what it's like to be a cashier. The thing is, I haven't lived "enough" to simply stick to writing just what I know. You can know enough to write but you'll always need to know more. Even if you're writing a book set soley on things you know, you'll still have to do the research into your own life to write it out. But you have to be willing to do it.

Sometimes I think the "write what you know" motto can be some people's easy way out for writing. Instead of expanding their imaginations they stick to just that, what they know and they'll quickly realize that there isn't enough about what they know to make their book interesting. I know a lot about New York but all the time I've spent there I've never been to Coney Island, which is where one of the WIPs is set. So there I must go, along with surrounding neighborhoods so I can get an accurante depiction of them. If I fake it, people will know. I'd rather do the reasearch (oh whoa is me, I need to spend a day at an amusement park) and get it right than wing it and hope people won't notice.

Danger Jane said:

That's the most important part of the saying for me--because it's true, everything but emotions, everything but human nature can be researched. "Writing what you know" is all about knowing people.

Click to expand...

Well put!

I'm a firm believer in the advice David McCullough (I think it was) once gave: "Write the book you want to read."

That might mean you have to do some research, or become an expert in something you didn't expect (I now know more about 19th century Spanish politics than I EVER cared to know, for example).

But start off writing the book you want to read. And before you know it, you'll be writing what you know.

It's something I take seriously, but maybe it's up to each writer's own discretion. I feel like I can connect better with my readers (be it through my column or articles, or with my novel someday) if I'm putting all I have into the conception and culmination of my work. If I write about what I know (for instance, multiple sclerosis, which has affected my family's life for the last 20 years, and plays a crucial role in my WIP), I can approach it from every angle, every nuance. Having that sort of personal, background knowledge helps, I think, inject a certain... something... into the work the readers can feel.

For the record, I do agree with whomever said some readers can fake it. Maybe someday I'll give that a try...

BlueLucario said:

Do you think "Write what you know" should be ignored or is it taken too literally?

Click to expand...

Personally, I take it to write what's inside of me and not something that's not part of me. I know what it is to lose people, through divorce, through attrition, through death. It doesn't matter that the character doesn't have the same exact circumstances, the emotions translate--I can write those emotions honestly for my characters. That's writing what I know.

I've never been to Victorian era London, but I've lived in large cities, near squalid areas during certain times in my life. I know what it is to walk in a neighborhood at dusk where you don't feel safe, where the street is so dirty you want to not only bathe yourself but wash your clothes and sterilize your shoes just from picking up the mail. I know what it is to sit my home at night and hear things happening outside that I really didn't want to know more about and prayed there'd be no blood to be seen come morning. I don't have to have lived in Whitechapel to get across to my readers the terror of being in that kind of situation. That's writing what I know.

But I still do research, and not just 'cause it's great fun. Facts need to be researched, confirmed and add to the knowledge of my life to fulfill my fiction. But writing what I know is the honest human experience of the story. I just can't see how you can write a good story without it.

DeleyanLee said:

Personally, I take it to write what's inside of me and not something that's not part of me. I know what it is to lose people, through divorce, through attrition, through death. It doesn't matter that the character doesn't have the same exact circumstances, the emotions translate--I can write those emotions honestly for my characters. That's writing what I know.

I've never been to Victorian era London, but I've lived in large cities, near squalid areas during certain times in my life. I know what it is to walk in a neighborhood at dusk where you don't feel safe, where the street is so dirty you want to not only bathe yourself but wash your clothes and sterilize your shoes just from picking up the mail. I know what it is to sit my home at night and hear things happening outside that I really didn't want to know more about and prayed there'd be no blood to be seen come more. I don't have to have lived in Whitechapel to get across to my readers the terror of being in that kind of situation. That's writing what I know.

But I still do research, and not just 'cause it's great fun. Facts need to be researched, confirmed and add to the knowledge of my life to fulfill my fiction. But writing what I know is the honest human experience of the story. I just can't see how you can write a good story without it.

Click to expand...

Excellent, excellent points.