This article gets five thumbs up from me, or it would if I had five thumbs.
My favorite bit:
Now, if only the author had spelled straitjacket correctly!
My favorite bit:
Now, if only the author had spelled straitjacket correctly!
-
Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work
"5 Lies They Tell You About Writing"
- Thread starter BethS
- Start date
- Status
Maybe this guy isn't understanding the essentials. As writer needs to know what he's writing, even if it's fantasy. In my fantasy, I need to place myself into the character's shoes and do as he does. I need to answer questions about his powers that no one will ask, just so that I know the answers.
I know, what I created, because I don't want to seem like a complete idiot.
And then the fact of knowing normal details are essential also. If you're going to tell me that a man fell off a 30 story building, and you inspected the scratches on his face-I'm done here, the writers doesn't know what he's even thinking.
... fiction contains lies, but it also contains truths. It's not an either/or issue as he's making it out to be. The balance also varies depending on the book. Still an interesting read.
What she's talking about there, under item #1, is the fact that the axiom "write what you know" is used by "experts" to convince writers that they must stay within the safety zone of their own personal experience. Which is nonsense.
That's a different question, however, from a writer having intimate knowledge of a character or a created world. And even in that case, the writer often doesn't start out knowing the character or the world particulaly well, but has to discover their secrets in the process of writing.
That's a different question, however, from a writer having intimate knowledge of a character or a created world. And even in that case, the writer often doesn't start out knowing the character or the world particulaly well, but has to discover their secrets in the process of writing.
While there is a wide world out there to roam around in, you're not going to maintain much interest in your writing if you write about Hawaii being barren tundra or the shores of Arizona. (unless we're talking sci-fi)
You have to either have or hunt down a little knowledge about what you are writing about. You don't have to produce an autobiography or pick snippets from your history but you can't go charging northward at night when you're approaching the Grand Canyon from the Arizon side.
I'm writing about a cooking show host right now who produces stuff I have absolutely no experience eating. I'm not going to produce a recipe or describe something I haven't learned a little about before I put words on a page. I also will probably never taste such a dish. We're lucky to have things like google to bridge the gap.
Back when this advice was first given, they didn't.
follow the spirit, not the letter of what was said.
You have to either have or hunt down a little knowledge about what you are writing about. You don't have to produce an autobiography or pick snippets from your history but you can't go charging northward at night when you're approaching the Grand Canyon from the Arizon side.
I'm writing about a cooking show host right now who produces stuff I have absolutely no experience eating. I'm not going to produce a recipe or describe something I haven't learned a little about before I put words on a page. I also will probably never taste such a dish. We're lucky to have things like google to bridge the gap.
Back when this advice was first given, they didn't.
follow the spirit, not the letter of what was said.
That's not quite where she was headed with it. If I tell you a lie, I am attempting to make you believe something untrue (usually for some sort of personal gain). If I give you one of my fictional stories to read, you're not expecting anything in them is going to be true and I'm not attempting to decieve you into thinking it is.
I think the point was to try and remove the dismissive label of lies from works of fiction. One is selfish and meant to do you harm; the other is meant to entertain, enlighten, provoke thought, etc..
Some good points, although a lot of it is as subjective as the opinions the writer contests.
But I do tend to agree with a good bit of it.
I especially like the distinction of the Woolf and Joyce films when referring to the alleged "war" between genre/litfic writers re: plot.
Although I don't remember Dalloway having a plot. In fact I thought Woolf purposefully strove to get away from that. Still, its structure was quite strong.
But I do tend to agree with a good bit of it.
I especially like the distinction of the Woolf and Joyce films when referring to the alleged "war" between genre/litfic writers re: plot.
Although I don't remember Dalloway having a plot. In fact I thought Woolf purposefully strove to get away from that. Still, its structure was quite strong.
If you want a quote for the concept, then V for Vendetta (possibly not where this idea originated):
"Your own father said that artists use lies to tell the truth. Yes, I created a lie. But because you believed it, you found something true about yourself. "
If you want a book that actually lies, then "The Thing They Carried" by Tim O'Brien, wherein he relates an event and then turns around and tells you it never happened because...
"... It wasn't a question of deceit. Just the opposite; he wanted to heat up the truth, to make it burn so hot that you would feel exactly what he felt.”
He also says:
"A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth."
"... That's what fiction is for. It's for getting at the truth when the truth isn't sufficient for the truth.”
... all of which, admittedly, agree with the article author's take on what truth and lies in fiction mean.
Last edited:
The biggest lie ever is that you can't start a sentence with but or and. Also I've heard some people say that you shouldn't start a sentence with "it". Wow. What even is a declarative style?
The biggest lie ever though is that you need "life experience" to write. Probably the biggest reason for this being bogus is that most people confuse "life experience" with "travel".
The biggest lie ever though is that you need "life experience" to write. Probably the biggest reason for this being bogus is that most people confuse "life experience" with "travel".
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
I tend to disagree with almost everything she said. She took these "truisms" if you will, and contorted them to mean something they don't mean and then argues that that isn't what they mean either.
I got a headache.
The whole "write what you know" means, don't go writing about high tech military thrillers if you know nothing about tech or the military because the reader will see that and throw the book across the room.
I got a headache.
The whole "write what you know" means, don't go writing about high tech military thrillers if you know nothing about tech or the military because the reader will see that and throw the book across the room.
... you name it. That evil is vanquished, and good triumphant in the end is one example. Sure all books don't go that route, but a fair number do -- particularly years back. And that is most certainly a lie or wishful thinking.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,657
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
Yeah, it can mean that. But when that bit of advice is handed out, it's usually intended to mean, "Don't write about anything outside your personal experience." Which means no one would write historical novels, or speculative fiction, or a host of other kinds of fiction.
"Write what you know" is continuously misinterpreted, and seen as an all or nothing, black and white piece of advice. It's meant to encourage writers to draw on their own experiences in order to bring an air of genuine emotionality to their work. When you write what you know you are weaving in more truths, because you as the author aren't only imagining these emotions, situations, relationships, etc. It helps you to connect with your characters and readers on another level. "Write what you know" becomes meaningless and flat out ridiculous interpreted the way I often see it interpreted--you can always learn new things, so why on earth would anyone advise you to stick soley to the information you have now?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,995
- Reaction score
- 606
- Location
- Central Maryland
- Website
- www.richardcwhite.com
It should also encourage writers to go out and try new things. Want to write about a hero climbing a castle wall to rescue the princess (or prince)? Then why not spend some time learning how to rock climb (either indoor or out)? Want to write a police thriller? Then try to hook up with a law enforcement officer and arrange a ride-along to see what a patrol is really like.
Write what you know is also an encouragement to get out of the house and away from the computer once and a while and live some life as well as write about it.
*grin*
Write what you know is also an encouragement to get out of the house and away from the computer once and a while and live some life as well as write about it.
*grin*
Of course we know what that means, but there are some people who take that stuff literal. Some people do take write what you know as write what you've experienced and unless you have that life experience, you can't write it. I've had people tell me that.
And the fiction thing... Tell me about it. I know people who have problems with fiction because its a 'lie' but it is not a lie if I tell you up front it is fiction and not real. I think this was written in response to the fact that some people take these 'lies' very literally. That's what she was responding to in order to shatter certain misconceptions... At least that's how I took it.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
Wow. She's promoting her fourth novel. I was promoting my fourth novel back in 1990. Kids these days ... if she'd wanted to know about writing she could have asked me.
First, there's that "Write what you know." Here's what I said about that in "Learn writing with Uncle Jim," way back a long time ago:
Descriptions are passé. Brand names are cool.
This is not a rule, never has been a rule, never will be a rule, nor have I ever heard anyone say this.
Nor are her "rules" three and four rules.
The fifth, "Hey, writers are entertainers. I'm not trying to be Tolstoy," is something that I've actually heard (or some close variant). Later on, when she has more experience in and with writing, perhaps Ms. Belmond will understand it.
Here's something I said about that sort of thing, too:
First, there's that "Write what you know." Here's what I said about that in "Learn writing with Uncle Jim," way back a long time ago:
Descriptions are passé. Brand names are cool.
This is not a rule, never has been a rule, never will be a rule, nor have I ever heard anyone say this.
Nor are her "rules" three and four rules.
The fifth, "Hey, writers are entertainers. I'm not trying to be Tolstoy," is something that I've actually heard (or some close variant). Later on, when she has more experience in and with writing, perhaps Ms. Belmond will understand it.
Here's something I said about that sort of thing, too:
One rule I disagree with - your MC needs to be likeable. Is it just me or do you find a lot of MCs are actually dislikeable? Especially goody-goody characters. As long as they're interesting, I want to read about them.
Maybe that rule should be "The MC needs to be someone the reader will want to read about." Which covers a lot more territory than "likeable."
Beths - I agree. And I like or dislike characters for various reasons, not always because of their morality.
- Status