Thread: Write what you know???

I have recently read two wildly-different interpretations of the meaning of the phrase “Write what you know.”

So what do you think it means?

I think it means there is no point writing about something that you have no knowledge about. for instance, I could write stories based on careworking with very minimal research as its what I've done for the last 7 years. But I couldn't write about life in a nuclear power plant without having to make a lot of it up or spending an ungodly amount of time doing research.

Experience is not necessary. I don't give a damn what anyone says; one can fake experience to a reasonable margin, and have their finished product sound as if it were written from first-hand experience.

Of course, research is required.

Also, what if the person writing was uncultured, unintelligent, obstinate and unwilling to learn (not just for art's sake, but generally speaking)?

Can one even write a work on masturbation?

I think it means to write what is fun for you. I write mostly horror, and I have never met a zombie, a demon from Hell or evil clown, yet these things have always fascinated me since I was a kid hiding under my blankets. Writing in this genre is fun and easy for me which comes across in my finished work. I'm sure I could write something like a period romance, but I'd be crying the whole time like the fat kid running across the bridge in "Stand by me". So write what you know, what you love and what is fun. To me, it's all the same

I think it means do your research. If I were to write a story about a molecular biologist discovering a new superbug then it would not be credible because I know nothing about molecular biology. So I'd have to do some serious research and learn about it.

I would be unwilling to write it in case someone knowledgable of such things read it and thought "What a joke...he knows nothing about it."

Originally Posted by Robdemanc

I think it means do your research. If I were to write a story about a molecular biologist discovering a new superbug then it would not be credible because I know nothing about molecular biology. So I'd have to do some serious research and learn about it.

I would be unwilling to write it in case someone knowledgable of such things read it and thought "What a joke...he knows nothing about it."

That reminds me of Verne and his novel, Twenty Thousands Leagues Under The Sea. If you've read it, you'll know that the amount of marine, scientific, and biological terminology he uses is immense. Apparently, he spent years researching it all, and made sure it was balls-on accurate with the current knowledge of the day. Immense is the word.

I wrote a short story which centred around the horse racing world; ownership, breeding, etc, and so I had to do quite a lot of research beforehand, as I knew next to nothing. It certainly made writing it interesting, as I was learning new information, incorporating it, and then discovering links between the two. That was small potatoes though.

To me it means taking your life experiences and applying them to the elements of your stories. It certainly doesn't mean you can't learn something new and write about that.

It is bad advice - Better would be "Use what you know to inform and guide your imagination". If you write only what you know, we will be as bored as you. If you know it all, that will come across in your writing, you will be, in effect, telling a tale retrospectively, it will be a been there and done that; the "what you know" should be the hard foundation of what you write, not the bricks and mortar of what you are building.

i think something to bear in mind with the 'write what you know' theory is that, valid as it is, it doesn't necessarily have to refer to literal experience. you can 'know' something well enough to write about it without having actually experienced it, so long as you have experienced the emotional truths behind it.

what i mean is that there are two forms of knowledge in the world on which a piece of writing can properly be formed. these are:

1) literal experience: the most obvious form of 'write what you know' i.e if you are a trucker with ten years experience of trucking you know how to write about trucks.

2) truth based on emotional experience: the more slippery and ambiguous of the two, yet probably the one most relevant to most people and certainly the one that allows you most freedom as a writer. i.e if you are a trucker with ten years experience of trucking as well as knowledge of trucks you may also have experience of geographical isolation, travel, self-reliancy, mechanics, loneliness, and so on.

the point is that experience in any given field is actually much more extensive that it might seem at first sight. there's nothing wrong at all with taking a fundamentalist approach to 'writing what you know' and indeed, writing something strictly within your field of life experience. in fact, such an approach is undoubtedly safer because, to go back to the previous example, if you are a trucker and decide to write a novel about your experiences you will have negligible risk of 'screwing up' when it comes to how you approach the subject matter. why? because its 'your life'. not to mention the fact, you probably wont have to research much at all, which is invaluable, because any writer knows how mentally taxing research can be. the main problem with this fundamentalist, literal approach is that unless your experience is extremely rich in lurid storytelling, you will eventually reach a point when you have exhausted the creative spring because life is only so long and as rich in inspiration experience is you will seldom find episodes that translate completely to a compelling, complete narrative.

that's when imagination becomes important, and when the fundamentalist approach to 'write what you know' gets pretty dicey. it goes without saying that if every writer only ever dealt with that which they directly experience, we would almost certainly not have many of our most cherished literary genres. fantasy would most certainly be out, since fantasy by definition is based on a lack of 'the real world'. horror would also suffer because horror, although often drawn from real situations, generally relies on the mental capacity of the writer (and reader) to deviate from accepted standards in morality (so unless your name is jeffrey dahmer, you're probably not able to write it based on experience). sci-fi would, at best, become a very bland and dreary affair. the list goes on and on. there's very few books that rely solely on the writer's concrete knowledge of their respective subject matter. one could argue at length over whether this is a good or bad thing; there are certainly some die-hard writers who theorize that for somebody to write a decent book about, say, war they must have experience of being in a war (and preferably in a conflict related to that which they write about). it's certainly true that most of the best books about war have been written by people with military experience. Could Remarque have written 'All Quiet On The Western Front' had he not been a german soldier in WW1? its highly debatable.

however, i disagree with that line of thinking for one reason only. i believe that what makes a story compelling and ring 'true' is not whether or not its based on physical truth, but emotional truth. i believe that provided a writer has experience of and properly understands the motivations, morals, personalities and politics behind their work, whether or not they have experience of dealing with the nuts and bolts is not a disqualifying factor. the emotional truth of a piece could be defined as the 'unwritten story', the themes of a book that are universal and not only existent within the world of one particular book or genre. so, while the predominant theme is obviously one thing and the writer's true-to-life experience certainly aids the impact of the story, the subtext of the same piece is often is quite different. while the predominant theme of 'all quiet on the western front', for instance, is obviously war; the subtext actually contains quite separate themes - loss of innocence, personal tragedy, futility, etc. and it is the subtext of that book - and most books - that matters. its worth remembering that most people dont read novels or short stories to learn about their subject matter -that's what non-fiction is for - they read them to learn about the human condition. the subject matter is simply to provide context.

therefore it is plainly much more important to 'know' the people in your book then it is to 'know' the context. writing a good story about something like war can certainly be done without 'knowing war' first-hand. tom clancy is one of the finest war novelists ever, but as far as i know he has never fired a shot in anger. same goes for stephen ambrose (band of brothers) and leo tolstoy (war and peace). the reason those authors are able to do it and do it well is because they know how to create characters through applying their empirical knowledge of the human psyche and then gathering their information about the subject matter through rigorous research. i write historical fiction with themes of horror and the supernatural and i don't believe much in the supernatural nor was i alive during the periods i write about. none of that fits strictly into the 'write what you know' mantra, yet it works because i do know people and what makes a character, and the rest of the knowledge i achieve through research and reading with a lot of imagination thrown in. characters and subtext are the key in fiction, not facts.

It is about writing honestly about your emotional experiences, your observations and thoughts about life, using concrete, vivid, but nevertheless fictional events, places, and characters, and doing enough research so it all feels credible.

Writing what you know simply means to draw your subject matter from your own life. I wouldn't write a story about a little African girl struggling to grow up in poverty, for example, because I have no idea what that's like. I'm a white, middle-class American who's never had true financial trouble.

Now, that doesn't mean that you have to experience the exact thing you've written about. I've had a close friend die, for example, so I could portray grief (any sort of grief) realistically in a story. I've done sports, so I know what it's like to feel victory after tough competition. That doesn't mean my story has to be about football, wrestling, or judo (the sports I've played).

Writing what you know is all about logically applying real experience to fiction. If you can write from the heart, your story will be all the better for it.

People with any sort of writing talent aren't concerned with these banal bits of so-called writing wisdom. Most of the time, they instinctively know whether or not their writing comes off as authentic. If people read my writing and feel it doesn't have a ring of truth -- fine -- let me know and then maybe I'll do something about it. Otherwise, I'm probably never going to change what I'm writing based on some cliche or someone's interpretation of it.

Joe, have you ever considered changing your username to the “The Dismissive One”?

You should. You’re really expert at it.

May I suggest you read and inwardly digest Post #9 by luckyscars, especially the two final paragraphs?

What are the things we all know?

Life. Ourselves. Our Emotions.

I interpret the idiom as saying, "Pour yourself into your writing"; write from your own unique perspective, as opposed to sterilizing your writing and cleansing yourself from it; write with your own voice, as opposed to trying to mimic another's.

You know yourself. Write yourself.

As Ray Bradbury advises, "Let the world burn through you. Throw the prism light, white hot, on paper."

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Joe, have you ever considered changing your username to the “The Dismissive One”?

You should. You’re really expert at it.

Sorry -- just offering my opinion, like everyone else.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

May I suggest you read and inwardly digest Post #9 by luckyscars, especially the two final paragraphs?

I did read and "digest" it. As far as I'm concerned, JohnM covered most of it and more succinctly.

Otherwise, achieving authenticity or the ring of truth pretty much comes down to a combination of experience, imagination and research -- all in varying amounts. And of course, writing talent and the ability to tell a good story.