Write what you know...Or write what you love....

[panda]

You hear that so often in writing. Write what you know. Apparently, research is for the birds, because you're born knowing certain things, and shouldn't write out of your own experience.
If this were true, historicals, fantasy, and horror, and other genres might not exist. Authors would be sorely limited. This phrase seems to be the antithesis of creativity.

Do you only write what you know?

It's good to be an authority on a subject, but in fiction...I'm not sure if that translates as well, unless JK Rowling went to an actual wizarding school and then I stand corrected lol.

[Salis]

Write what you know is nonsense after a certain point.

Write what you love is great advice, but really not mindblowing. (Yes, you should do what you enjoy in general. You will get better results with it.)

[katiemac]

There's legitimacy in the statement in the sense you can take what you know and apply it to different situations. Think on more of an emotional level and translate that "knowledge" to the page. You may have never been to war but you might know what it's like to be scared for your life or hurt someone or miss your family.

But a strict, literal adherence to write-what-you-know? Never.

[Salis]

Also, keep in mind that ineffable truths can be book-learned.

For example: I have almost drowned twice. I have first-hand knowledge of what it's like to start to die, and an emotional instinct for what it's really like when you reach that point where you give up and are no longer scared, are ready to die, etc... nevertheless, if I write something like that, I have no leg up on someone who hasn't gone through that, because these experiences have been recounted so many times by so many people that the things you go through are well known if you have any interest in them.

You might not be able to write about what it is like to die on Pluto, but other than that, it's really not that hard.

[panda]

(Yes, you should do what you enjoy in general. You will get better results with it.)

I think you are right.

[Ruv Draba]

Do you only write what you know?I just finished writing a short about a social-worker, a pig-deity and arson in the city of Sydney. I've had no direct experience with the first three and had to do my research. I used to live in Sydney but still paid a visit to do my research.

So, my answer is: do your research. If the place is real, learn about it. If it's not, develop it until it feels like it is. There may always be people who know more about a subject than you, but I do think that a writer's understanding needs to be deeper than a couple of quotes from Wikipedia.

[Cliff Face]

I'm really bad at the research part - I tend to go more with concepts that I'm familiar with already. That said, I'd rather invent a new city than only write about ones I've lived in. I mean, I understand what goes into a major city, what's missing from a minor city, the types of things you might find in a country town etc.

But then again, I'm writing fantasy, so it's not required that I set the book somewhere real. :) Yay for me, because I'm really horrible at the research. One thing I do want to write, however, is something set in the south of Adelaide (lived in various southern suburbs/country towns all my life).

[timewaster]

I take it to mean 'if you don't know find out.' This is particularly true of fantasy and historicals. Unfortunately almost everything requires at least some research unless every character is your own age, and has the same history and life experience. The trick is to make stuff you've learned feel like the stuff that you 've experienced so that it doesn't clunk and destroy the whole narrative.

[Stijn Hommes]

Research is the key. Write what you know is solid advice, but it's not really phrased correctly and often misinterpreted. Basically, it is the author's business to know what they write about. If they don't, they should research until they do, but even that isn't needed all the time. In a lot of cases you can wing it and make things up. No one is going to check if the castle in your dragon realm is in the right place or of that house in South Kensington has a couch near the south-facing window.

Be free. Just don't make obvious mistakes.

[Telstar]

I would revert that to:

Know what you write

It sounds better, doesn't it?

[kaitie]

I like know what you write much better. That's a good one, Telstar.

I've been told this for ages, and truth be told except for some short stories about gymnastics in sixth grade, I've never followed it. I think there is a lot to be said for imagination, and some people have much more vivid imaginations than others. I've always felt, though, that "write what you know" is always taken to mean write about experiences similar to yours, or places you have been, etc. And while there is some logic to that, I think a good novel touches on universal truths as well. If you know those truths, if you know people and understand their interactions and motivations, you can write an amazing book. I have no idea if that makes any sense. I just feel like there is usually some link to something you know, even if you're writing a completely fantasy world.

[Danthia]

I did a blog post back in June about writing what you know (http://storyflip.blogspot.com/2009/06/knowing-what-you-know.html) that has a different take on it.

Basically, you know more than you think. You don't have to relate your experience exactly, but you can draw on things that happen in your life and work it into a story. Being scared of dogs easily translates into someone being afraid of "normal" things, and you can use that to show fear. Things you've seen can become setting or a unusual detail looked at from a unique perspective. I've watched the fireplace crackle and had ideas on how to describe things in my fantasy works that barely related to fire.

Inspiration is everywhere. Using it is using what we know.

[Tara Stone]

If I only wrote about things I've had firsthand experience of, my stories would be pretty boring.

"Write what you love" is much better advice - and it sounds obvious at first, but it can be harder than it sounds, once that little voice in your head starts up that says, "But people will think something is wrong with you if you write that," or, "But that's not publishable!"

[DeleyanLee]

Do you only write what you know?

Yep. And what I know is the magic of life and hope, the power of knowledge and determination, the frailty of the ego, the strength of the heart, the despair of betrayal and loss and a zillion other things that makes for interesting stories.

Whether what I know is set against something fantastic, historical, modern, or whatever, whether it's told about a love relationship, a quest for power, the fight against wrong--all of that is secondary and doesn't change what I know and what I write about.

[Lady Ice]

I'd say...write what you feel. If you know about the reproduction of flies but don't love it, your book will not be convincing.

Empathy is the key. People can overlook mistakes if you are good enough at it (although do research).

[panda]

I would revert that to:

Know what you write

It sounds better, doesn't it?


It sounds loads better. :)

I think you all are right.

[Telstar]

If I only wrote about things I've had firsthand experience of, my stories would be pretty boring.

"Write what you love" is much better advice - and it sounds obvious at first, but it can be harder than it sounds, once that little voice in your head starts up that says, "But people will think something is wrong with you if you write that," or, "But that's not publishable!"

It looks like, but the risk of writing loads of pages on the writer's "pet hobbies which interest no one but him" is very high.

While I think that writing something that doesn't interest you at all is both hard and unpleasant, you cannot write only about "pet hobby", unless that's so mainstream that it has a big market.

[Stijn Hommes]

I would revert that to:

Know what you write

It sounds better, doesn't it? I think every writing book should contain this advice instead.

[motormind]

I would revert that to:

Know what you write

It sounds better, doesn't it?

Yes, but I prefer to be totally in the dark about what I write. If necessary, I can fill in the nitty-gritty details later.

[Lady Ice]

'Don't bull**** the readers' is what I think the point is. Don't make yourself out to be an expert on something which you don't know much about.

Danthia's point is very good. Like in acting, any intense feeling can be used for art. When I did A-Level exams I dropped RE after I got my results, having only taken it because the school told me to. It felt so bad getting my teacher to sign the dropping form, as I liked doing the essays but not the exams.

I used the feeling of being torn and feeling guilty, the conflict between education and a desire to learn, mixed with a controversial scene mentioned in one of my other projects, to create one of my plays I'm writing. It's about a university professor and student and has many other themes stemming off from the original. Understanding the feeling really helped give the work depth.

[Blackest_Nite]

Personally, I say write whatever you wish. I think it's an added bonus when you can connect situations with similar events in your life/knowledge, but it's not necessary to have experienced everything. If I went with 'write what you know' my WIP would be horrible. Balancing my knowledge and interests in writing has always worked out well for me.

[James D. Macdonald]

Do you only write what you know?


Yes.

Fortunately, what I know is people, and all novels are about people.

[MGraybosch]

I'd rather write about what I love. If I don't happen to know something, I can learn it. Making myself love something I don't love is a bit more difficult.

[TheIT]

Stopping with the phrase "write what you know" is horribly limiting. I'd suggest instead: Write what you know or are willing to learn. Once you learn, you know, right? And if you're not willing to learn about the subject, why write about it?

Writing something familiar is much easier (and much more likely to be accurate) than writing something unfamiliar.

[Rowan]

Write what you are passionate about - whatever moves you to stay up late and miss those Friday night outings with your friends. ;) I strongly agree with those who said do your research. There is nothing worse than being a former Marine / former federal agent and reading a novel about either that misses the mark, esp if it involves those pesky stereotypes re: women in LE / military. While I feel having experienced something like that firsthand is helpful when writing it doesn't guarantee a captivating story if you aren't passionate about your writing/subject matter. I'd personally hate being forced to write about drug agents --- I'd rather write about vampires or something far from my own personal reality. But that's just me... :)

[Brutal Mustang]

Part of the joy of writing for me is research, research, research. I'd die of boredom just writing what I know.

[scope]

Basically, you know more than you think. You don't have to relate your experience exactly, but you can draw on things that happen in your life and work it into a story.

Inspiration is everywhere. Using it is using what we know.

Danthia,

For me, this condenses pretty much all I want to say. So if advice has to be given, for me it'll always be write what you know -- but not in the strict sense in which it sounds. It's the launch pin to take you and your story somewhere.

[Charissa]

Generally, I like to write about what I think about things that I don't know about.
It's just like dreaming. Some of the most surreal things happen in dreams, but in the real world, you know you'll never experience them for yourself...
I have written about a death, yet I haven't really experienced it myself ... but if I was to experience death then it would be to late to write about it now wouldn't it?
So t'would be unwise to write about something that you know, as it would seem rather dull, and nothing eventful would ever happen. Unless you lead some kind of adventurous life that is only ever heard about in books and movies.

BUT If I was to write about something I love, then all my novels would be filled with happy and soppy and pleasant boring things, with no action, or climax at all.

So in the end I decide not to cram myself into a box like some kind of contortionist, and break free from the limitations of what I know and/or love.

[lucidzfl]

Man this conversation comes up a lot. If you can do enough research to pull it off, go for it.

I have read things before and said, wow, that guy doesn't know what he's talking about. That stuff frustrates me to no end. Simple things like how much recoil a gun has, or what kind of ammo has what effect, you'd be amazed at how many people just pull that stuff from their ass.

[scope]

BUT If I was to write about something I love, then all my novels would be filled with happy and soppy and pleasant boring things, with no action, or climax at all.

So in the end I decide not to cram myself into a box like some kind of contortionist, and break free from the limitations of what I know and/or love.

Charissa,

It's your work and in the end you'll do what you want. However, I suggest you read Danthia's post again. Perhaps you missed what she's implying.