# Write What You Know



## MistWolf (Jan 22, 2021)

I'm spinning this off the Worst Advice thread.

Write What You Know

I'm watching _L.A.s Finest_ and this guy falls out out of the sky and crushes an exoticar. Turns out he was tossed out of a helicopter.

Here's the dialogue the victim's partner gives the police-

"We just got a new helo. A big Robinson R44. Lowell figured if we could take up a few more people at a time, we could make a few extra bucks. We were in debt up to our eyeballs. Lowell loved the company... He really blamed himself that we weren't doing great. We're partners but he was the business guy. I just flew the helos. We were up in the R44 doing an initial FAA AD eval."

"Just the two of you?"

"Yeah. We're up and Lowell is distracted. Out of nowhere, he throws the door open. Only takes a second for the downwash to catch him. It was all I can do to keep the helo on axis against the wash. Lowell was gone."

Ok. Maybe it's bad advice to only write what you know, but you'd better know what you write. If you don't know something, _find out_. Don't try to bullshit your way out of it.

A Big Robinson R44- Robbies aren't big helicopters. They were designed to be simple affordable helicopters for the everyman. The four seat R44 is big compared to the two seat R22 made by the same company. But R44s aren't big helicopters.

Take a Few More People- An R44 is a four seater. Anything smaller would be a two seater. In a four seater, a tour company can take three clients. A two seater can take one. Considering what it costs to run a helicopter per hour, no one is going to pay to take a tour on an R22 alone. Most clients will gather two other friends and split the costs three ways.


We Were Up In The R44 Doing An Initial FAA AD Eval- An AD is an Airworthiness Directive. It's a document that must be complied with for an aircraft to be airworthy. You don't take aircraft up for an "Initial FAA AD Eval". You take aircraft up for a test flight or a maintenance test flight.

Only Takes A Second For The Downwash To Catch Him- First, I've never tried to open the door of any of our helicopters in flight, but have flown in one that had the doors removed. There is no downwash coming into the cabin to catch you. Second, no one is going up in an R44 without their seatbelts fastened. Part of the preflight checklist s to ensure everyone is buckled up.

It Was All I Can Do To Keep The Helo On Axis Against The Wash- First, no pilot talks like this. Pilots are more likely to say something like "It was all I could do to keep the bird in the air." Second, the helicopter is always "in the wash".

Of course, the statement is rehearsed and a lie and it turns out the victim was pushed out of the helicopter to his death. But the victim wasn't  coerced. They went up to cut in the victim on their illegal activities. When he turned them down, one of the badguys pushed the victim out on impulse. The badguy would have had to reach across the victim, unlatch the door and unlatch the seatbelt.

I get that as writers, we're not always gonna get it right. But the writers of this show didn't even try. They looked up a bunch of aviation words and strung them together without a clue as to what they mean. Not only were the writers sloppy and and lazy, they assumed the audience isn't smart enough to know the difference.

Maybe we don't have to stick to writing what we know. But we'd better know what we're writing whether it's speculative fiction or takes place in the real world. We can get away with breaking the rules of writing. But if we break the rules of the world we're writing in, we'll lose our readers.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jan 22, 2021)

They didn't know what they didn't know - You know but, seemingly, you expect others to know what you know - Bring back Rumsfeld I say...


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 22, 2021)

Bloggsworth said:


> They didn't know what they didn't know - You know but, seemingly, you expect others to know what you know - Bring back Rumsfeld I say...


No, I don't expect them to know what I know. But just grabbing some phrases off the internet and slapping them together without a care to their meaning?

Packing that much derp in one scene takes a special talent.


----------



## VRanger (Jan 22, 2021)

Having made a lifelong career of software development, I get to roll my eyes almost every time the subject comes up in a script. The same is true of shots of rooms full of mainframe computer equipment and discussions about what the characters are doing with it.

Plus, I can't count how many times an "answer" has appeared on a CRT, one slowly presented letter at a time, with accompanying teletype clacking.

Particularly in the 70s, the capabilities of computers were overblown every time writers included them in a script ... and that still happens today.

A similar thing happens whenever you see chess in a TV show or movie. Rarely does the board show a sensible position, and dialogue about games will insult the intelligence of any player with an iota of tournament experience.

Now we'll combine that with computers. An episode of Mission Impossible (a show I enjoy, btw), had Roland Hand of the team playing a match against a noted grandmaster, and they supposedly fed him moves from a chess computer. In reality, it would be more than a decade after that time before any computer chess program could hold its own against even an average player. In 1997, it took a dedicated IBM super computer with a team of developers--using software that no doubt had many thousands of man hours in development--to narrowly defeat World Champ Garry Kasparov in a six game match. Mission Impossible had Barney (their engineer extraordinaire) whip up a grandmaster beating program in, at most, a few days.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Jan 23, 2021)

Isn't it a misinterpretation of 'write what you know' that causes problems? What it means, and I've always taken it to mean, is use your own experiences of grief, love, lust, hatred, disappointment, passion etc. It doesn't mean tell us about when you went to the shop to buy a pair of shoes, unless the guy selling you those shoes was called Grut and had a hunch.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 23, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> Maybe we don't have to stick to writing what we know. But we'd better know what we're writing whether it's speculative fiction or takes place in the real world. But if we break the rules of the world we're writing in, we'll lose our readers.



These few sentences sum up the problem of writing discussion so often revolving around semantic games more than anything else.

There is no significant difference in English between the advice 'writing what you know' and 'knowing what you write'. They literally mean the same thing, just like 'you ride a bicycle' and 'a bicycle is ridden by you' mean the exact same thing in every way that matters.  

Similarly, there are no rules of writing that matter other than the 'world we're writing in'. The world either makes sense to the reader, and through making sense becomes appealing to them, or it doesn't. There is no duality of rules -- because why would there be? The Phantom Tollbooth defies plenty of rules that might exist in other books, yet the fact it is a successful novel destroys the notion that there are any valid rules beyond the book in the first place. The vast spectrum of fiction and the history of its development undermines any belief that rules are some fixed thing that cannot change according to the needs of each text.

*Of course you must write what you know.* It is a necessary truth, because if you -- the author -- do not know it and 'it' is necessary for the story then how is that circle to be squared? 

What is missing from the advice (to no real fault of the advice itself, more those who interpret it) is:

(1) *That knowledge is not a static thing.* Every day what we 'know' changes based on things we experience, read about, etc. What you know when you start a book is unlikely to be the same as when you finish it. Research exists.

(2) *That there are different dimensions to knowing most things. *Beyond the basics, most things are multi-faceted. For instance, *what does it mean to know about Hitler? *There are many dimensions to Hitler, after all. One can possibly 'know Hitler' by knowing his life story, height, dates of service, whatever. That's one definition of 'knowing Hitler'. But one can also 'know Hitler' by knowing about his political philosophy, that is another definition. One can ALSO know Hitler from studying his motivations, his psychology. Conclusion: It is possible to know any one of these facets and 'know Hitler' without knowing much about the others. I could have a great understanding of Hitler and have no idea the name of the town he grew up in. So, what? So, knowing things is usually quite complex, and arguably there is no standard of absolute. It is possible to read every book about Hitler and still not properly know him. So, the very concept of knowledge is often relative anyway.

(3) *With points #1 and #2 in mind, point #3 is relevancy. *This is the most important of all. What is needed for the story? Who is the reader? What is the goal? It was not necessary for Mary Shelley to understand a great deal about anatomy to write Frankenstein to the standard of being a great novel...but it was undoubtedly necessary she understood some. Jules Verne had no formal studies in science, at least nothing advanced, and yet his books incorporate plenty of science. Would Verne's work have been improved by knowing more science? Possibly, but not necessarily, we don't know. Would they have been worse if he had known less? Probably. All we know is what we have and it is clear that Verne's work incorporated exactly the right amount of scientific understanding to be effective. That is the only standard that matters.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 23, 2021)

As someone without a specific knowledge of helicopters I still have seen enough movies (ha! I know, I know...) with people flying around in helicopters without doors on (military, etc.) to know that you're not going to get 'sucked out' by the wash of the blades. Rescue crews who use helicopters to bring people up to the cabin from the ground while the chopper is in the air would have a really hard time if the wash did something like that.


> Ok. Maybe it's bad advice to only write what you know, but you'd better know what you write. If you don't know something, _find out. Don't try to bullshit your way out of it._


Probably the best wording of the advice to write what you know that I've seen so far. Well put.

And now I know exactly who to hit up for advice and beta reading if I have a helicopter scene.  Beware, MistWolf!


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 23, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> These few sentences sum up the problem of writing discussion so often revolving around semantic games more than anything else.
> 
> There is no significant difference in English between the advice 'writing what you know' and 'knowing what you write'. They literally mean the same thing, just like 'you ride a bicycle' and 'a bicycle is ridden by you' mean the exact same thing in every way that matters.



Don't take this personally but-
*MINDLESS RANT ON BECAUSE- *Two buzzwords I find really annoying are "semantics" and "literally". In my experience, they are over used and improperly at that. Too many times I've seen "semantics" used to dismiss points people don't understand. Literally is usually employed as an unneeded exclamation point and rarely in the correct context.*-MINDLESS RANT OFF *

It may seem like it's the same way, such as your example of riding a bicycle. But it's not the same and it's not semantics either. Writing is a doing, so let's look at doing.
*
DO WHAT YOU KNOW-* When I go looking for a job, I look for jobs I know how to do to maximize my income. The job I know is Aviation Maintenance. I know how to keep aircraft flying safely. I know how to troubleshoot. I know how to document my work. 

In writing, I can draw on my experience as an AirFrame & Powerplant technician to write about a character who travels around the country to fix aircraft and gets himself in trouble when he opens a floorboard and finds a mysterious bundle duct taped to the airframe.

*KNOW WHAT YOU DO-* Before tackling a job, I gotta know what I'm doing. Let's say the port engine of the Beech Baron isn't making power and the problem is traced to the engine's right hand magneto because the breaker is worn beyond allowable. Before removing the magneto, I need to look up what magneto the airplane has and whether or not I have the facilities to tear down the mag, replace the worn parts and set the internal timing. 

Let's say this is important to the plot. Our traveling technician finds out the Beech Baron being used for nefarious activities can't make take off power because the mags are bad. He has to get the Baron in the air because if he doesn't, Sal & Guido will Make Bad Things Happen. As a writer, I must know what I write because it impacts the story. My description of the problem is correct and contains no "let's just wing it" bullshit. Yet, it sounds like gobledygook because understandably, you have no idea what I'm talking about. As a writer, I have to know what I write so it makes sense to the reader. I have to know what I do, what I write, so I can understand it's impact. For example, I could go into detail explaining all the details a reader needs to know what a magneto is and how it affects engine power and thus put my readers to sleep. Or, could simply have our hero tell the guys in black suits & sunglasses the mags are giving weak ignition and all four need replacing. That's knowing what I write.



> Similarly, there are no rules of writing that matter other than the 'world we're writing in'. The world either makes sense to the reader, and through making sense becomes appealing to them, or it doesn't. There is no duality of rules -- because why would there be? The Phantom Tollbooth defies plenty of rules that might exist in other books, yet the fact it is a successful novel destroys the notion that there are any valid rules beyond the book in the first place. The vast spectrum of fiction and the history of its development undermines any belief that rules are some fixed thing that cannot change according to the needs of each text.



What we call "Rules of Writing" are "Guidelines to Getting Published". We don't have to follow those rules (or guidelines, if you prefer) but publishers don't have to publish our works.

_The Phantom Tollbooth_ sets all sorts of rules on their heads, but does so by following its own set of rules. If it broke it's own set of rules, it would break the reader's suspension of disbelief



> *Of course you must write what you know.* It is a necessary truth, because if you -- the author -- do not know it and 'it' is necessary for the story then how is that circle to be squared?
> 
> What is missing from the advice (to no real fault of the advice itself, more those who interpret it) is:
> 
> (1) *That knowledge is not a static thing.* Every day what we 'know' changes based on things we experience, read about, etc. What you know when you start a book is unlikely to be the same as when you finish it. Research exists.


Very good points



> (2) *That there are different dimensions to knowing most things. *Beyond the basics, most things are multi-faceted. For instance, *what does it mean to know about Hitler? *There are many dimensions to Hitler, after all. One can possibly 'know Hitler' by knowing his life story, height, dates of service, whatever. That's one definition of 'knowing Hitler'. But one can also 'know Hitler' by knowing about his political philosophy, that is another definition. One can ALSO know Hitler from studying his motivations, his psychology. Conclusion: It is possible to know any one of these facets and 'know Hitler' without knowing much about the others. I could have a great understanding of Hitler and have no idea the name of the town he grew up in. So, what? So, knowing things is usually quite complex, and arguably there is no standard of absolute. It is possible to read every book about Hitler and still not properly know him. So, the very concept of knowledge is often relative anyway.


That's just semantics and Hitler was literally an Anti-Semantic! (Feel free to insert *RANT ON* here.)



> (3) *With points #1 and #2 in mind, point #3 is relevancy. *This is the most important of all. What is needed for the story? Who is the reader? What is the goal? It was not necessary for Mary Shelley to understand a great deal about anatomy to write Frankenstein to the standard of being a great novel...but it was undoubtedly necessary she understood some. Jules Verne had no formal studies in science, at least nothing advanced, and yet his books incorporate plenty of science. Would Verne's work have been improved by knowing more science? Possibly, but not necessarily, we don't know. Would they have been worse if he had known less? Probably. All we know is what we have and it is clear that Verne's work incorporated exactly the right amount of scientific understanding to be effective. That is the only standard that matters.


I agree Mary Shelly and Jules Verne didn't "know" science, but makes my point. They knew what they were writing and stayed in their lane. Neither used bullshit gobledygook in their story. They knew the rules of their fictional world and never broke them.

Let me finish with a good example of a writer not knowing what they wrote-


> We Were Up In The R44 Doing An Initial FAA AD Eval- An AD is an Airworthiness Directive. It's a document that must be complied with for an aircraft to be airworthy. You don't take aircraft up for an "Initial FAA AD Eval". You take aircraft up for a test flight or a maintenance test flight.


The above paragraph is written in a way that it sound like "an initial FAA AD Eval" is called "a maintenance test flight". Nothing could be further from the truth.

ADs are regulatory documents that must be complied for an aircraft to be airworthy. The documents and the aircraft are evaluated by the technician (not the FAA) for compliance during an inspection performed on the ground. Preferably in a hangar that's heated in the winter and cooled in the summer (not the other way around as is usually the case). Test flights are performed after all inspections and maintenance have been completed.

I don't know what knucklebutt wrote that, but he should have his keyboard privileges revoked!- At least until he cleans the catbox and gets the laundry done.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 23, 2021)

Foxee said:


> As someone without a specific knowledge of helicopters I still have seen enough movies (ha! I know, I know...) with people flying around in helicopters without doors on (military, etc.) to know that you're not going to get 'sucked out' by the wash of the blades. Rescue crews who use helicopters to bring people up to the cabin from the ground while the chopper is in the air would have a really hard time if the wash did something like that.
> 
> Probably the best wording of the advice to write what you know that I've seen so far. Well put.
> 
> And now I know exactly who to hit up for advice and beta reading if I have a helicopter scene.  Beware, MistWolf!


If I can be of help, I will.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 23, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> I get that as writers, we're not always gonna get it right. But the writers of this show didn't even try. They looked up a bunch of aviation words and strung them together without a clue as to what they mean. Not only were the writers sloppy and and lazy, they assumed the audience isn't smart enough to know the difference.
> 
> Maybe we don't have to stick to writing what we know. But we'd better know what we're writing whether it's speculative fiction or takes place in the real world. We can get away with breaking the rules of writing. But if we break the rules of the world we're writing in, we'll lose our readers.



I totally hear you on this!  One of my pet peeves when watching cop shows, is how tough and colloquial all the cops are. I've never been a cop, but I doubt they all speak like that.  When you see one in real life giving a public statement, they sound so articulate and rational...even gentle.

Or something that I do know, like the corporate working environment.  Typically leaders are portrayed as being a little on the acerbic side, saying things like "ok people, listen up", or constantly referring to people by their last names, or treating people like dirt.  30 years in the corporate world, it was not my experience. Leaders were often soft spoken and respectful...employee engagement is a big thing with strong leaders.  I was however, grateful for the Don Draper character, I thought he acted more like leaders I had reported to.  I thought that whole Mad Men series was pretty realistic.  But I doubt that the writers had all been in the advertising business.  So expecting people to write what they "already" know is unrealistic. But, they should do the research to avoid any mishaps as you have described.

When I started to write my first novel, I thought, _Make it easy, write something you know_.  Afterall, I have had three careers: musician, fashion designer, accountant; have traveled all over the world, and lived in multiple countries.  But do I choose something I know?  No...lol!  My protagonist is a financial journalist. At 45K words, I discovered a huge hole in the plot because I didn't really understand her work environment.  So I stopped and did a bunch of research. And actually, I found that to be one of the most enjoyable parts of the writing.  I learned about a different industry.  And I plan to get a journalist to beta read it as well.  And in the end, I think it will turn out better, because I won't make assumptions about what the reader may know or not.  I just finished reading a novel written by the first female stockbroker.  She set it in the Chicago Stock Exchange.  But I found many of her descriptions of certain transactions were not clear.  It's hard to write about something you know a lot about for someone who knows very little.  I found myself having to google certain transactions and teach myself so I could follow the plot.  

Slightly off topic, but amusing, is a physics professor who once explained to me why he felt compelled to retire.  He said, he couldn't understand why students didn't comprehend the subject matter, because he couldn't remember what it was like not to know it himself.  So he just couldn't figure out anymore what to say to help people get it.


----------



## VRanger (Jan 23, 2021)

Mistwolf, it may interest you to know that there is at least one essay concerning the difference between "write what you know", and "know what you write". That essay starts out with the typical meandering lack of specificity for "write what you know", but gets very specific when it discusses "know what you write":

*"Know what you write" means research, learn, identify, and immerse yourself in your chosen subject."
*
I can agree with this definition with confidence.

There exists a blog with short essays by 31 successful authors, each of whom gives slightly or widely divergent takes on "write what you know", even to the point of dismissing the advice. Toni Morrison says she told a class "Don't write what you know, because you don't know anything".

A few of the authors' comments involved the observation that most people don't have very much of interest in their own lives, nor wide experience, so to write anything interesting they'd better be ready to branch out.

To digest all of the comments of those 31 authors and several other blogs, here's what it boils down to:
*Make it make sense.

*Whether what we're writing involves a technical description, a battle, details of part of the world, an emotional response, a daily routine, or a conversation, we have to *make it make sense*. If we don't know what we're writing about through research, experience, observation, or conscientiously laying a foundation for our milieu, our ability to make sense becomes hit and miss. A miss means a risk of popping our reader out of immersion and potentially losing the reader entirely.


----------



## Llyralen (Jan 23, 2021)

I totally agree with "finding out" and it worries me when I feel like I don't have all the resources that I need.   This is inspiring me to ask a few questions in the research thread just in case someone knows something like what you know about helicopters.  
Thank you!


----------



## indianroads (Jan 23, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> I totally agree with "finding out" and it worries me when I feel like I don't have all the resources that I need.   This is inspiring me to ask a few questions in the research thread just in case someone knows something like what you know about helicopters.
> Thank you!



google is my friend.


----------



## Llyralen (Jan 23, 2021)

indianroads said:


> google is my friend.



And googleearth and youtube.  Youtube shows me a lot of what I'm looking for, but... actually... there's a LOT of information that I need that is not readily available.  Things about people's experiences and memories.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 24, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> And googleearth and youtube.  Youtube shows me a lot of what I'm looking for, but... actually... there's a LOT of information that I need that is not readily available.  Things about people's experiences and memories.



True - nothing trumps direct experience... which is why I often suggest that writers take a self defense class if they're planning on writing action scenes.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 24, 2021)

> There is no significant difference in English between the advice 'writing what you know' and 'knowing what you write'. They literally mean the same thing, just like 'you ride a bicycle' and 'a bicycle is ridden by you' mean the exact same thing in every way that matters.



Have you never read the Mad Hatter's tea party scene from 'Alice' ? The two injunctions are not the same, literally or metaphorically.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 24, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> It may seem like it's the same way, such as your example of riding a bicycle. But it's not the same and it's not semantics either. Writing is a doing, so let's look at doing.
> *
> DO WHAT YOU KNOW-* When I go looking for a job, I look for jobs I know how to do to maximize my income. The job I know is Aviation Maintenance. I know how to keep aircraft flying safely. I know how to troubleshoot. I know how to document my work.
> 
> ...



Three options seem to exist:

1."I have been a truck driver all my life. I have done no other job. Therefore if I am writing about workplace occupations in detail I should only, or mainly, write about truck drivers". 

^This could also be described as 'write what you know'.

2. "I have been a truck driver all my life. I have done no other job. Therefore if I am writing about workplace occupations in detail, I will ensure I do careful research on any workplace occupations that are not truck driving. In addition, the AMOUNT of research I do will be approximately equal to the degree of departure from what I know as a truck driver -- e.g. if writing about an astronaut or a movie actor I will research more intensively than if I am writing about a train driver, as the train driver more closely resembles my knowledge sphere than being an astronaut or movie actor. I will also take into account the importance -- do I just need to know about astronauts for a single scene, or the whole thing? My research will reflect relevancy." 

^ This could be iterated as 'know what you write'.

3. "I can do whatever I want however i want and you can't stop me so suck it".

^Ignorance.

I feel like we are probably both mostly on #2 (?) and I want to believe most [good] writers are. 

I don't know many who are on #1. Actually, I'm not sure I have ever met any. Non fiction writers, maybe? Travel writers who only write autobiographically? Most people don't adhere rigidly to 'write what you know' because as well as being so severely limiting it is actually bad for the writer long term. It is bad because it removes so much of the challenge that develops good writers. I don't know if Stephen King's writing improved significantly the first time he wrote a novel that was not set in Maine, but I know mine has been enriched by not always writing about 'American guy in American city does American things'.

Again, I agree there is a conceptual difference between #1 and #2 of course but they both ultimately require knowing where the third one doesn't. If the point you are making is to highlight that the difference between 1 and 2 is important, I cannot disagree. I just don't honestly know if there are many people who rigidly adhere to #1 -- as common sense seems to imply that #2 is a form of number one, that it is simply #1 that takes into account _learning._

I do, however, know there are lots of writers who -- publicly or privately -- subscribe to #3. I know this because I read them a lot, on here and other places. As a former lawyer, I am confronted daily by the abuses of laypeople who think that twenty minutes of reading about Miranda Rights on Wikipedia makes them John Grisham. This is actually quite a serious problem, because it misrepresents the truth on things that might actually be important. 

How many young people have died as a result of going to fight in wars based on inaccurate, fictional accounts of what war is like? Probably millions. So when people dismiss 'write what you know', I find it quite insidious. Do we not want some standards here? I don't want to see war portrayed as bloodless and I don't want to see the law portrayed as some sort of game. I sure as shit don't want to see politics portrayed conspiratorially regardless of how 'entertaining' it is, because beyond a certain point it is both inaccurate and harmful. I don't like to give Oliver Stone a hard time because the man's a good director and it's honestly not really his fault, but I absolutely wonder how much of the Current Problem people have with institutional mistrust comes down to shit like 'JFK'. 

Again, it's a thin line to walk, we just need to all be careful regarding perceptions. We need to be responsible. Writing what you know isn't just to appease random aviation engineers or lawyers but, ultimately, comes down to contributing positively to the body of truth that the world depends on.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 24, 2021)

Research is important for good writing because no one can know everything. Like most here, I've searched the web for info on a number of shady things (how to blow up a train, how to build a pipe bomb, etc.) - so I'm probably on an NSA watch-list.

That said though, experience brings depth and authenticity to our work. What's lit like to ride a motorcycle across the Mojave? You may not ever do that, but you can ask a friend what it's like. What's it like to fall in love? What's it like to wake up in the hospital after a concussion? What does gunsmoke smell like? What does the market street in a small town in Italy smell like? What's it like to sit in an Irish Pub (in Ireland)? 

I could go on and on - experience is best but often impossible, and in that case do research.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 24, 2021)

indianroads said:


> Research is important for good writing because no one can know everything. Like most here, I've searched the web for info on a number of shady things (how to blow up a train, how to build a pipe bomb, etc.) - so I'm probably on an NSA watch-list.
> 
> That said though, experience brings depth and authenticity to our work. What's lit like to ride a motorcycle across the Mojave? You may not ever do that, but you can ask a friend what it's like. What's it like to fall in love? What's it like to wake up in the hospital after a concussion? What does gunsmoke smell like? What does the market street in a small town in Italy smell like? What's it like to sit in an Irish Pub (in Ireland)?
> 
> I could go on and on - experience is best but often impossible, and in that case do research.



Beyond research, I think it's also really important (in some cases, maybe more important) to be attuned to overlaps between experiences.

My current WIP has a scene where a young pregnant woman goes to meet her husband at a railway station, expecting him to be on the arriving train of soldiers returning from World War One, only to discover he had actually been killed in action on Armistice Day.

That is honestly a much harder scene to write than I realized. The unique emotional experience coupled with the historical period makes it multi-faceted. I can research the station, I know what a station is like. The emotional part? I had to look for overlaps between what her experience might be like and what mine have been like. I have never lost a spouse. I have never had anybody go away to a war, let alone a war like World War One. 

The only way to overcome it was to focus not on the experience singularly but break it down to its component parts. That is, I think, how most writers do it (I don't know how else). In this case, there were 

(1) What is it like to go to meet somebody and find they have not showed up (for any reason? 
(2) What is it like to find out somebody you love is gone (not necessarily dead, but gone and unreachable)?
(3) What would it be like if both of those things were true at the same time?
(4) What would it be like if this combined-experience took place in a 1918 railway station? What unique aspects does that environment present? (research time!)

By combining, you can pastiche the experience. In my opinion, that is 'writing what you know'. While it may not be as pure a form of it as writing an actual lived experience, it's the next best thing and, so long as it is done well, it is without dishonesty. 

Now, it may be the case that this technique still results in mistakes. I am inclined to believe that those mistakes will, usually, be fairly trivial. If somehow they are not, that is a job hazard -- you can't be right all the time. The important thing is that we try. 

Perhaps a better guideline than 'write what you know' is 'write what you find credible'?


----------



## indianroads (Jan 24, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Beyond research, I think it's also really important (in some cases, maybe more important) to be attuned to overlaps between experiences.
> 
> My current WIP has a scene where a young pregnant woman goes to meet her husband at a railway station, expecting him to be on the arriving train of soldiers returning from World War One, only to discover he had actually been killed in action on Armistice Day.
> 
> ...



Really an excellent post - and it points to developing empathy for our characters... to actually feel those emotions (to some degree - too much would leave us a mess) while we are writing.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Jan 24, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Beyond research, I think it's also really important (in some cases, maybe more important) to be attuned to overlaps between experiences.
> 
> My current WIP has a scene where a young pregnant woman goes to meet her husband at a railway station, expecting him to be on the arriving train of soldiers returning from World War One, only to discover he had actually been killed in action on Armistice Day.
> 
> ...



I think you'd need at least some idea of loss to write it convincingly, although cleverly chosen ambiguities could be an option if you haven't experience loss. Your list is definitely a decent template for approximating an unknowable event but the death of your mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter would give it far more chance of being authentic. Grief is grief regardless of circumstance. Any other elements, such as the feeling of impotency or lack of agency can be drawn from other sources, but they're not going to be as import as grief itself. They'd just add in other layers.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 24, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> I think you'd need at least some idea of loss to write it convincingly, although cleverly chosen ambiguities could be an option if you haven't experience loss. Your list is definitely a decent template for approximating an unknowable event but the death of your mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter would give it far more chance of being authentic. Grief is grief regardless of circumstance. Any other elements, such as the feeling of impotency or lack of agency can be drawn from other sources, but they're not going to be as import as grief itself. They'd just add in other layers.



I think that's driven less by evidence and more by the sacredness we - as a society - understandably ascribe to death. 

As somebody who has experienced family members dying, my opinion is that no two deaths are ever the same. Sometimes, they aren't similar at all, despite seeming like on paper perhaps they should be. Sometimes a death yields less of an emotional reaction than one would expect, or at the very least a different one. On the other hand, sometimes a loss that doesn't result in death can feel more 'death-like' than one that does. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it's true.

For example, I experienced very little grief a result of losing a grandparent at the age of 102. Not because I didn't love him but because it was a peaceful loss, painless, not particularly surprising (though not expected, either) and it was just generally not that painful. If anything, I recall there being far more relief that he had gone so painlessly and easily and a sense of admiration and, almost, happiness that he had lived 102 years (given he wasn't all that healthy a person). On the scale of sorrow, it was fairly low. 

I'm not saying there wasn't any grieving at all, mind, only that it was obviously a vastly different kind of experience than, say, losing a grandparent at the age of 60 from a sudden heart attack, which is also different to the experience of being dumped by one's first love. It's different again to a 'non deadly loss', such as being betrayed by a lifelong friend or an ugly divorce. Hell, I've known people so badly affected by the death of a pet cat they have needed therapy. Others have needed it after the death of a famous musician they loved. It may sound nuts or hysterical sometime, but I don't believe anybody is in a position to judge the validity of such feelings -- What you feel is what you feel. Grief is, ultimately, about the people/person left behind. What matters is those are all experiences that can, with enough channeling, be called upon to. The trick is to hone in on the right ones to achieve the right effect. 

Point being, 'grief is not grief regardless of the circumstance'. I just really disagree. Grief is a spectrum and every loss is different. In writing, the idea isn't to design templates for 'what is the correct reaction when this happens' but to partake in an emotional journey that the reader finds believable. That is always easier said than done, but by calling on those moments from one's own life -- whatever they are -- where Loss Has Felt Most Acute you might at least be able to empathize with the character and write it in a way that seems real.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Jan 24, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> I think that's driven less by evidence and more by the sacredness we - as a society - understandably ascribe to death.
> 
> As somebody who has experienced family members dying, my opinion is that no two deaths are ever the same. Sometimes, they aren't similar at all, despite seeming like on paper perhaps they should be. Sometimes a death yields less of an emotional reaction than one would expect, or at the very least a different one. On the other hand, sometimes a loss that doesn't result in death can feel more 'death-like' than one that does. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it's true.
> 
> ...



This is the reason I said grief is grief. There's no such thing as one defining attribute of grief. Every single one of us has a different experience with a few commonalities. There's no point in worrying about how a character in a certain age would grieve because no matter how you describe it, most will only relate to those few commonalities. The rest would be taken as particular to the character you're writing, which is actually a good thing.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 24, 2021)

vranger said:


> *Make it make sense.*


Succinctly put.



luckyscars said:


> 3. "I can do whatever I want however i want and you can't stop me so suck it".
> 
> 
> ^Ignorance.


This made me laugh- in a good way. It's spot on and hits closer to home that I care to admit.




> We need to be responsible.


Sobering, but true.




luckyscars said:


> Beyond research, I think it's also really important (in some cases, maybe more important) to be attuned to overlaps between experiences.



I believe this is true in life as well.



luckyscars said:


> Grief is a spectrum and every loss is different.


Something we should never forget.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 24, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> I think that's driven less by evidence and more by the sacredness we - as a society - understandably ascribe to death.
> 
> As somebody who has experienced family members dying, my opinion is that no two deaths are ever the same. Sometimes, they aren't similar at all, despite seeming like on paper perhaps they should be. Sometimes a death yields less of an emotional reaction than one would expect, or at the very least a different one. On the other hand, sometimes a loss that doesn't result in death can feel more 'death-like' than one that does. Sounds counter-intuitive, but I think it's true.
> 
> ...



Forewarning: I tend to share too much.

I was forced by circumstances to live on the street when I was a teenager (13-15 yo). It was rough, but I fell in with a bunch of other kids that were surviving by selling heroin to junkies - yeah, I know... bad indianroads, but eating and having a place to sleep are good things. Anyway, one of those kids was my first girlfriend - does everyone remember the power of that first real relationship? Anyway, her mother had left her dad and had hooked up with an outlaw biker that was a junkie. The guy was dangerous and seriously unstable.

Ok - here's the hard part. One night she stayed behind while I went out with a few others to earn our keep. When I came back, I found her... stabbed by her step dad. I held her as she died.

That was over 50 years ago, and although I love my wife and children, and enjoy my life - I still grieve her loss. 
Ok - now I'm gonna sit in the corner and cry a bit.


----------



## BrandonTheWriter (Jan 24, 2021)

This is what I tend to do. It's why I don't approach genres such as science fiction because I wouldn't have the first clue of how to make it readable/coherent. I like keeping my stories grounded and realistic. I figure if it's easy for me to follow as a writer it should be for any potential readers.

I think the hacking scenes in shows make me laugh the most. Or any of the scenes from CSI.


----------



## VRanger (Jan 25, 2021)

BrandonTheWriter said:


> This is what I tend to do. It's why I don't approach genres such as science fiction because I wouldn't have the first clue of how to make it readable/coherent. I like keeping my stories grounded and realistic. I figure if it's easy for me to follow as a writer it should be for any potential readers.
> 
> I think the hacking scenes in shows make me laugh the most. Or any of the scenes from CSI.



Read some Heinlein. "Tunnel in the Sky" would be a good start. He often takes one little piece of "fantasy technology" and pivots his story around it. The rest purely revolves around character. "Farnham's Freehold" barely has any sci-fi at all. A direct hit from an A-bomb propels a bomb shelter into the future. After that it's all character and speculative society. "The Door into Summer"? Other than a brief time travel sequence, which there is no scientific basis to underpin, all character.

"Heroic fantasy" and "Urban fantasy" is harder work that than sort of sci-fi, as you have to manufacture a set of rules and keep them coordinated.


----------



## Deleted member 65352 (Jan 25, 2021)

How can you write what you know, if you write Dystopian Sport Romance Fantasy?
What if you want to put a bacon lettuce and tomato character in your story and you're hetero?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 25, 2021)

trubbshore said:


> How can you write what you know, if you write Dystopian Sport Romance Fantasy?
> What if you want to put a bacon lettuce and tomato character in your story and you're hetero?



Dystopia...

(1) Recall past experience of chaos/breakdown of order you have experienced -- being in a group of unattended children? Being in an angry crowd? A misbehaving classroom? Doesn't matter how small, everybody has experienced a sense of anarchy-in-microcosm.
(2) Recall the roles law and order have on your reality
(3) Apply your prior experiences of 'social breakdown in micro' to the status quo of order. Consider what this would be like, given the character you are envisioning (a child's experience would be different to an adult's, etc.)
(4) If needed, apply the 'new rules' you have come up with to create the 'new order'. This part would be invention, but consider where they come from. The idea of tyranny comes from tyrannical circumstances. Remember what tyranny feels like, especially destructive tyranny. It doesn't come from nowhere, it's human behavior. Study it.
(5) For setting and character, research 'other realities' as appropriate -- if you're an upper-middle class kid who lives in the suburbs, perhaps research what life in a city is like (if your dystopia is urban in nature). Maybe take a walk. Observe and integrate.

Ultimately, learning anything is about separation into smaller pieces. You don't 'learn music' you 'learn scales' and 'learn songs'.

The same sort of 'divide and overcome' rules work for any piece of any genre and any piece within the story. 

Writing about the elderly? Talk to and study the elderly. Writing about children? Talk to and study children (be careful with that one).


----------



## indianroads (Jan 25, 2021)

vranger said:


> Read some Heinlein. "Tunnel in the Sky" would be a good start. He often takes one little piece of "fantasy technology" and pivots his story around it. The rest purely revolves around character. "Farnham's Freehold" barely has any sci-fi at all. A direct hit from an A-bomb propels a bomb shelter into the future. After that it's all character and speculative society. "The Door into Summer"? Other than a brief time travel sequence, which there is no scientific basis to underpin, all character.
> 
> "Heroic fantasy" and "Urban fantasy" is harder work that than sort of sci-fi, as you have to manufacture a set of rules and keep them coordinated.


Wasn’t it Heinlein that said he allowed one impossible thing in his stories?


----------



## Llyralen (Jan 25, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Beyond research, I think it's also really important (in some cases, maybe more important) to be attuned to overlaps between experiences.
> 
> My current WIP has a scene where a young pregnant woman goes to meet her husband at a railway station, expecting him to be on the arriving train of soldiers returning from World War One, only to discover he had actually been killed in action on Armistice Day.
> 
> ...



You’re not saying it throughout but I know you’re thinking it because of what you said at the beginning.  How does being pregnant affect all of this?    And it’s a really good question because my mind is immediately trying to place myself into her shoes.   I haven’t lost someone while I was pregnant, but it’s amazing how almost everything g I was thinking when I was pregnant would connect to the baby/(ies.  I have twins.)  Someone shoved past you quickly, kind of knocking you off balance and pushing against your stomach where the baby(ies) is/are.  While you’re driving someone passes you too quickly giving your car not much room.  I just remember wanting this huge sign over me saying “I have kids here!!!! PLEASE BE CAREFUL!”   I was so in love with them.  Still am.    Losing my husband while pregnant would have been devastating.  A huge loss for me but also all my dreams for my child and our family time together and all that I would have married my husband for.  I knew how to pick a good father and actively dated to find someone who would be a good father, would have been lost.  I would have experienced my loss and also all those dreams for my child.   Loving my husband for himself but also because he makes wonderful memories for our children means I love him even more for myself...

Patton Oswald who loved his wife very much shares his experiences of losing his wife not just for himself but for his daughter and he’s a comedian, but he is a comedian who knows that life is full of pain to try to heal— heal with comedy too.   That might be some good research by the way.  I think the comedy special I’m thinking of is on Netflix .  Hmm... looked it up.  It’s his stand-up special “Annihilation”.  He says the 2nd worst day of his life was finding out his wife had passed and the worst day was telling his daughter.    Very recommended.  I haven’t had to deal with my kids’ loss and that was the worst part for Patton and I learned from his experience.

Good luck on this piece, it sounds ambitious, but you’ll do a great job!


----------



## Foxee (Jan 25, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> You’re not saying it throughout but I know you’re thinking it because of what you said at the beginning.  How does being pregnant affect all of this?


Whew, my mind immediately went to a neighbor of mine who was pregnant when her oldest daughter (then seventeen) was killed in an accidental shooting. This didn't happen to me but I went to the funeral, I saw the parents (my neighbor and her ex-husband) standing over the casket with their heads hanging as though shot through the heart. I saw her ongoing posts on FB as she wrestled with grief, set up a charity in her daughter's name, got tattoos in her memory, and three years later she still posts similar grief-stricken memes and posts.

It's at a remove from direct experience but the people around you can inform your writing to some extent, too.

That step-by-step thought process mentioned by LuckyScars is a good idea, too. Build it out.


----------



## VRanger (Jan 25, 2021)

indianroads said:


> Wasn’t it Heinlein that said he allowed one impossible thing in his stories?



I've heard that quote, but I can't remember if it was about Heinlein, and I haven't been able to find it with a bit of searching. It could fit. However, here are some other quotes where he mentions "impossible":

_* Everything is theoretically impossible, until it’s done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.

* __An invention is something that was “impossible” up to then—that’s why governments grant patents._

And possibly the best one: 

_* It’s impossible for a woman to lay it on too thick with a man. If you tell a man he’s eight feet tall and say it often enough, with your eyes wide and a throb in your voice, he’ll start stooping to go through seven-foot doors._


----------



## clark (Jan 25, 2021)

Luckyscars --Kudos, m'man. In two or three posts on this thread you have shown sensitivity, intelligence, and wisdom on the complex issue of grieve-over-death. I'm an old guy and I've buried or burned both parents, both siblings, and so many friends it's almost embarrassing to still be here myself (almost . . .). Not only do people respond to death in different ways, individuals respond to different deaths in different ways, as others here have noted. Credibility is surely key, but here the fictional milieu assumes a 'reality' stronger and stranger than life itself. I worked with a mechanical, wooden, dull guy who rarely showed any emotion. When his brother died, this emotionally bereft guy went to pieces. He wailed, cried, howled, beat his head bloody against a tree. We had to get him on tranks just so he could get some sleep. If you wrote in that much hyperbole in a similar fictional character, your readers would throw your novel across the room because they expect consistency. I was very close to one of my sisters, and when she died I was almost indifferent. I didn't feel much of anything. Seven YEARS later, one afternoon, I broke down into puddles of tears and inconsolable grief for a long time. Go figger . . . . . 

Writers do not have to write to what they 'know'. By that argument, Shakespeare must have been a king, a queen, a beggar, a lascivious nurse, a lawyer, a soldier, a black man, a good friend, a motiveless malignancy, a vicious murderer, a kindly priest . . .we all get the point. I cannot imagine a good writer--poetry or fiction-- who was not deeply empathetic  and very imaginative about all aspects of the human condition, certainly including death. Just about every writer I have ever heard of was alive when she/he wrote about death (except maybe Emily D and that pesky fly . . . .). 

Theseus in MSND tells us how we can pull it off:

The poet's eye in fine frenzy rolling
Doth glance from Heaven to earth, from earth to Heaven,
And as the imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation, and a name.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 26, 2021)

clark said:


> Writers do not have to write to what they 'know'. By that argument, Shakespeare must have been a king, a queen, a beggar, a lascivious nurse, a lawyer, a soldier, a black man, a good friend, a motiveless malignancy, a vicious murderer, a kindly priest . . .we all get the point. I cannot imagine a good writer--poetry or fiction-- who was not deeply empathetic  and very imaginative about all aspects of the human condition, certainly including death. Just about every writer I have ever heard of was alive when she/he wrote about death (except maybe Emily D and that pesky fly . . . .).



This goes back to my earlier point, though, which is that this all too often this topic becomes super reductive and/or semantic gamesmanship.

Your point about Shakespeare assumes that one must BE what one WRITES which is plainly not the case for the reason you explain -- it's absurdly limiting and, taken to its full extreme, means that all work must be entirely auto-biographical and, for that matter, feature only one character. 

Because even in Shakespeare was a king, he was not -- one must logically assume -- THE king he was writing about. He wrote about numerous Kings anyway, in multiple different time periods and cultures, so was he all of them? No. Even if he was a King, he most certainly could not be both a King and a Queen and a Beggar and a drunk, etc etc. So simply by having more than one character, the writer most likely violates this fundamentalist vision of 'write what you know'. That's certainly true if there is any diversity whatsoever.

So no, obviously if to 'know' is to 'be' then writing anything other than a diary is impossible. Samuel Pepys wrote what he knew. By the measure that it's the truest form of writing, then Pepys' diary is not only the best novel but the only genuine book that ever existed, which I don't think anybody can agree on, no matter how much they might love Pepys.

But that's not what the advice means anyway, I think most sane people can agree on that. I would again point back to the idea that this is not a binary question 'I know what it's like to be a king/I don't know what it's like to be a King'. It's a spectrum question -- Pretty much everybody has _some_ concept of what it's like to be a king, the question is how deep that knowledge runs and the soundness of the foundations on which it is built and how effective it ultimately is. 

It's not whether the writer knows what it's like to be a king, it's whether the reader believes the illustration. 

That is everything. 

But...it is also nothing, because you cannot control what the reader believes and obsessing about it is a painful distraction and invariably leads to neurotic writing. In practice, you can only control what you put out there.

 On that understanding, 'write what you know' is great advice. It is great advice not because it mandates what can or cannot be written about but because it does one crucial thing and that is to mandate THOUGHTFULNESS and EFFORT. It stops me, a privileged white person in the 21st century, from writing about a 19th Century African slave without making _damn_ sure I research that shit to the enth degree and, what I cannot research, deploy exhaustive empathy towards. 

Shakespeare was not a king, but he knew kings. Shakespeare was not a beggar, but he knew beggars. Shakespeare did not write about Native Americans and their culture, presumably in part because he did not know much about them. Therefore, I think -- yes -- Shakespeare absolutely did follow 'write what you know'. 

This is really important. It is really important not because of any silly PC reasons or to place arbitrary limitations on the writer but, rather, to make sure my writing is better. If it wasn't for my belief in the principles behind 'write what you know' (as opposed to its most stringent definition) then my writing would be worse. It's a simple fact. One of the most common reasons routinely given for rejection is the agent/publisher not believing the writer knows their story.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 26, 2021)

I think it's okay to write what you don't know as long as people can still buy it but you have to make sure.  I have a background in audio recording, and a lot of times I've noticed in stories, and movies that deal with audio spy and surveillance technology, that they really push the limit as to how far they can go with it, even manufacturing whole recorded conversations that sound real to the characters that they buy it, and thus the reader buys it.  But even though I know it's made up, I don't let it detract me from the story, and I'm guessing others do not either.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 26, 2021)

clark said:


> Writers do not have to write to what they 'know'. By that argument, Shakespeare must have been a king, a queen, a beggar, a lascivious nurse, a lawyer, a soldier, a black man, a good friend, a motiveless malignancy, a vicious murderer, a kindly priest . . .we all get the point. I cannot imagine a good writer--poetry or fiction-- who was not deeply empathetic  and very imaginative about all aspects of the human condition, certainly including death. Just about every writer I have ever heard of was alive when she/he wrote about death


Shakespeare may not have been anything in that list of characters, but he did know how he perceived them. I don't know what it is to be a woman. But I know what my perception of being a woman is. I know what my perception of how others react to women is.

I don't know what it's like to be the President of the United States. But I know what my perception is. I know what my perception of the reaction of others to the President is. Based on my perceptions, I can imagine how it might be to be President. I can write about that. I can use my intuition and imagination to fill in the gaps. I can use my judgement to avoid writing BS.

I don't know what it is to be an Elf from our fantasy world. But I know what it's like to play the role of one in a game.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 26, 2021)

Write what you know means, for me, that you find out about what you don't know so you can know it.

Don't know how to fight? Take a self-defense class or a martial art.
Don't know what it's like to be pregnant? Ask your mom, or auntie or someone who's been pregnant.
Don't know what a gun sounds or feels like? Go to a gun range.

There's only so much you can learn from reading a book or googling. Somethings have to be experiences to truly talk about it in detail. How can you talk about float in the ocean if you've never even seen the ocean? Sure you could read what someone else wrote and mimick them, but you'll only be aping someone else's work, opinions and thoughts.

There's a ton you could learn without experiencing it, but little compares to the actual experience of doing a thing.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 26, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> It's not whether the writer knows what it's like to be a king, it's whether the reader believes the illustration.
> 
> That is everything.
> 
> Shakespeare was not a king, but he knew kings. Shakespeare was not a beggar, but he knew beggars. Shakespeare did not write about Native Americans and their culture, presumably in part because he did not know much about them. Therefore, I think -- yes -- Shakespeare absolutely did follow 'write what you know'.



Your identification of writing what the reader believes is astute! Most people don't know what it is like to be a king or a beggar, so Shakespeare, and I'm not suggesting from any weakness, was walking in pretty safe territory to get buy-in.

I always wonder why so many people have a murder or suspicious death as the basis for their story.  Very few people have experienced knowing someone who has died that way.  So it does right off the bat, give the writer some latitude.   I often find it odd how the other characters act.  But then, I really have no idea how people would act in that circumstance, having someone close to you murdered.  I'm reading _The Banker's Wife_, and both of the FMCs have had someone close to them get murdered.  It definitely sets the tone for the rest of the book...would be hard to have them do anything fun or frivolous at this point.  Right where I am, one of them, who's husband she loved very much, was murdered.  It appears that she now only a few days after the murder is getting into a romance.  I'm not sure how realistic that is, not knowing what it's like to have your loving husband murdered, but Cristina Alger is a good author, so I'll be interested to see how she pulls that off.  

But something significant came to light for me while reading your post.  That there may be a reason why I cannot often find the type of books I really love to read.  Books like Texas, Shogun and The Da Vinci Code.  What do all of these books have in common?  They are fiction wrapped around fact.  I know...I know...Dan Brown got heavily criticized because he misrepresented the history of the Catholic Church. Whole books have been written about it.  But, there was enough of it that tied into history and certain landmarks that he really had to know his stuff.  And one of the strengths of the book, I have always thought is his detailed descriptions of places, like the Louvre and Chartres Cathedral.  Places where many of his target market would have been, or seen on Kenneth Clark's _Civilization_. His descriptions of landmarks are so realistic that they pull you into being a believer really fast.  From there, much of it, at the very least, hangs together and makes sense. It's believable enough to keep your attention.   

Now that I'm trying to write in the same genre (are we off the word now?) or category, I realize just how hard it is, and why many may not even make an attempt.  My novel centres around a series of crimes that actually occurred.  I am telling the story through the eyes of people who know the industry surrounding these crimes.  It will be something similar to Cristina Algers, _The Darlings_, not the same crimes she covers, but similar ones.  So to make this easier to understand, while not giving away my plot, I'll use the example of Pearl Harbour to explain my current challenge.  While the story is fictional, it has to hang realistically onto a number of facts about the attack.  So as an author, you feel that it’s your responsibility, when choosing to write around factual subject matter, to educate people. Or, not to lose those who are already knowledgeable.  

The last few days, I was writing one of the hardest chapters, because it required a lot of what I call factual clues.  Real life events.  I could only write about 400 words a day because I am researching and cross referencing to make sure I have a number of reliable sources.  I don’t want to get caught plagiarising because it wasn’t a fact, only someone’s opinion of the events, so that's another consideration.  Then trying to write believable dialogue, that sounds natural.  And, trying to stay out of the weeds, yet still providing enough detail to make it interesting.  Finally...making sure it would be understandable to those who don’t know about it.  At the end of the day yesterday, I was really happy with how it turned out, but, I had a huge headache!!


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Jan 26, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Your identification of writing what the reader believes is astute! Most people don't know what it is like to be a king or a beggar, so Shakespeare, and I'm not suggesting from any weakness, was walking in pretty safe territory to get buy-in.
> 
> I always wonder why so many people have a murder or suspicious death as the basis for their story.  Very few people have experienced knowing someone who has died that way.  So it does right off the bat, give the writer some latitude.   I often find it odd how the other characters act.  But then, I really have no idea how people would act in that circumstance, having someone close to you murdered.  I'm reading _The Banker's Wife_, and both of the FMCs have had someone close to them get murdered.  It definitely sets the tone for the rest of the book...would be hard to have them do anything fun or frivolous at this point.  Right where I am, it appears that one of them, who's husband she loved very much, was murdered.  It appears that she now only a few days after the murder is getting into a romance.  I'm not sure how realistic that is, not knowing what it's like to have your loving husband murdered, but Critina Alger is a good author, so I'll be interested to see how she pulls that off.
> 
> ...



This is why I just 'make stuff up'. I just couldn't put that amount of work into it. It would drive me nuts.


----------



## clark (Jan 26, 2021)

Luckyscars -- What is to be gained by implicitly accusing a fellow member of this forum of promoting _"super reductive [argument] and/or semantic gamesmanship" (your 35) ? _In fact, I argue exactly the OPPOSITE position, as would have been obvious to you had you noted the irony. In missing that, you misrepresent my thinking and my writing. At no point did I ever suggest that a writer must "be" or "have been" a character or that he must have "experienced" a specific experience to write about it convincingly. What utter bloody nonsense. To suggest I did, is to read with surprising hastiness.  I DID--in error, for you, it seems--assume that the IRONY in my phrases ". . .what they 'know'" and "must have been" (see post 34) would be clear.

You then erect a straw man of your own design, and proceed to knock it down. Well, whatever . . . . But please do not include me in this rather insular approach to the principles of argument.

And note that I suggest Theseus has much to teach us about this whole complex Venn diagram issue of writer/perception/real experience/imagination/writing when he says that the poet's eye scours the known and unknown universe for 'material' but finally "_the imagination *bodies forth*_" the unknown and makes it known. Again, my point is the opposite of what you seem to think I am arguing.

In my view, you misrepresented my point, perhaps inadvertently, on the public boards. I have attempted to redress that . . .on the public boards. If you would like to continue  what might well be a dispute between us, I must insist that you do so through *Private Messaging*, where I will happily engage. I'm sure you agree, our fellow members will have no interest in being involved further. Thank you.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jan 26, 2021)

clark said:


> And note that I suggest Theseus has much to teach us about this whole complex Venn diagram issue of writer/perception/real experience/imagination/writing when he says that the poet's eye scours the known and unknown universe for 'material' but finally "_the imagination *bodies forth*_" the unknown and makes it known.



Ultimately this is my beef with the "write what you know" adage. Although it seems almost presumptuous to say, I do believe that human beings can engage in what Tolkien calls "sub-creation" -- that, although the raw material may be experience or learned knowledge or the subconscious or whatever, the author ultimately can create things and experiences which have not previously existed. So, of course they are not writing what they know, because they are writing what was never known. 

And if it is argued that "write what you know" is meant in an emotional sense, I would say that many stories, especially of the heavily sub-creative type, hinge on more than just plays of emotion. Is the atmosphere of Middle-Earth, or Narnia, or Malacandra, really just a conglomerate of the emotions of the characters involved and the experiences of the author? I would say, emphatically, no. Malacandra _exists. _If I traveled there I would know it. Anyone who read _Out of the Silent Planet_ would know it. And they would know that it's not just a derivative of Earth (or the primary world): it's a new thing, another thing.


----------



## EternalGreen (Jan 26, 2021)

Ursula Le Guin said creativity is like a compost pile. Life goes in; and can't tell the potatoes from the corn when it comes out.

I consider this sort of a rhizome approach to creativity.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 26, 2021)

If there's one thing that seems clear from this thread it's that the most well-meant advice can be taken many different ways.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 26, 2021)

clark said:


> Luckyscars -- What is to be gained by implicitly accusing a fellow member of this forum of promoting _"super reductive [argument] and/or semantic gamesmanship" (your 35) ? _In fact, I argue exactly the OPPOSITE position, as would have been obvious to you had you noted the irony. In missing that, you misrepresent my thinking and my writing. At no point did I ever suggest that a writer must "be" or "have been" a character or that he must have "experienced" a specific experience to write about it convincingly. What utter bloody nonsense. To suggest I did, is to read with surprising hastiness.  I DID--in error, for you, it seems--assume that the IRONY in my phrases ". . .what they 'know'" and "must have been" (see post 34) would be clear.
> 
> You then erect a straw man of your own design, and proceed to knock it down. Well, whatever . . . . But please do not include me in this rather insular approach to the principles of argument.
> 
> ...



You are misreading and misrepresenting my point and are entirely, breathtakingly grasping at the wrong end of the stick. I am profoundly bewildered.

At no stage was I arguing against you, but at the issues others raise as related to your statement that “Shakespeare was not a king but wrote about kings” (paraphrase). I was, mostly, agreeing with you and simply applying it to the larger point. That it is an absurd standard - we agree.

Note the bolded below. If you read it slowly enough, without emotional cloud, you should be able to gather that it was not in direct response to you or your point but, rather, inspired by it, an addendum to it, directed at those who would take such things literally. I nonetheless apologize if it was unclear. 

Let me know when you would like to apologize for your incorrect comprehension and, frankly, rather unwarranted and dramatic escalation.

No hard feelings either way, but however you decide...please do not misrepresent me moving forward. Thanks.

I said: “This *goes back to my earlier point*, though, which is that this *all too often* this topic becomes super reductive and/or semantic gamesmanship.

Your point about Shakespeare assumes that one must BE what one WRITES which is plainly not the case *for the reason you explain”*


----------



## bdcharles (Jan 27, 2021)

Tettsuo said:


> Write what you know means, for me, that you find out about what you don't know so you can know it.




Precisely so.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2021)

Edited.  I was making no sense.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 27, 2021)

This thread has gotten tangled.

None of us have been both male and female, been in every circumstance, played every sport, fought in a war and in the ring, endured every possible tragedy, floated weightless in space, gone to the bottom of the ocean [...]

What we can do is draw from our own experiences where possible, and fill in the blanks with a mixture of research and imagination.

In the end, we all do the best we can.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Jan 27, 2021)

I have several notebooks, of the evolving and solidifying of a thought. They are more or less the proving of the reality of a thought, to my very self. But since I find this thought to be absolutely beneficial, if taken care of, like any plant in a garden needs, I’m curious how one might recommend taking these notebooks and putting them into another format? I don’t want to go the fictional route, as the storyline tends to distract from the purpose of the story. But again, if one does not take care of their garden, the weeds will surely overtake it, regardless of what is being done correctly.... Like watering and sun.... they just kind of happen. But the weeding needs kept up on, else it all grows together. Even before this is the preparation of the soil though. 

Anyway, I was considering some Artful pages as well, to help fill out the book, once I figure out the path to take from notes to book.

To be more clear, it is surely a philosophical writing that I seek to put together, but all I have right now are notebooks of thoughts evolving and proving what is still yet theory. The thought is awesome. Looks good on paper. But who reads notes for fun? Lol, so I have to give this spirit a new form. 

Any ideas? Or is this not the proper place? I mean, I can just think out loud in here, right?


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 27, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> I have several notebooks, of the evolving and solidifying of a thought. They are more or less the proving of the reality of a thought, to my very self. But since I find this thought to be absolutely beneficial, if taken care of, like any plant in a garden needs, I’m curious how one might recommend taking these notebooks and putting them into another format? I don’t want to go the fictional route, as the storyline tends to distract from the purpose of the story. But again, if one does not take care of their garden, the weeds will surely overtake it, regardless of what is being done correctly.... Like watering and sun.... they just kind of happen. But the weeding needs kept up on, else it all grows together. Even before this is the preparation of the soil though.
> 
> Anyway, I was considering some Artful pages as well, to help fill out the book, once I figure out the path to take from notes to book.
> 
> ...


The discussion in this thread is about writing what you know. Your question would be best answered in its own thread.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Jan 27, 2021)

indianroads said:


> This thread has gotten tangled.
> 
> None of us have been both male and female, been in every circumstance, played every sport, fought in a war and in the ring, endured every possible tragedy, floated weightless in space, gone to the bottom of the ocean [...]
> 
> ...



Ah, but what if drawing from our own experiences, or the experiences of others, is what keeps us experiencing the same things? I mean, if we use the same ingredients, do we not get the same soup?


----------



## NobodyParticular (Jan 27, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> The discussion in this thread is about writing what you know. Your question would be best answered in its own thread.



Just trying to be clear here: So because this thread is about what we “know”, there are to be no “questions”?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 27, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> Ah, but what if drawing from our own experiences, or the experiences of others, is what keeps us experiencing the same things? I mean, if we use the same ingredients, do we not get the same soup?



No, because there is the barrier of perception and bias and, it must be said, ability.

It's like if you have one hundred artists sketch the same landscape, none of them will be exactly the same. Some of the sketches may be similar, some more than others, but there will be different things that are focused on, different strengths and weaknesses of perception and execution. One artist might be really focused on/good at bringing to life a tree, another a field, another the sea. In this case, when we are dealing with two outlets of human input (the subject and the object) the variations are even more endless because of the inherent complexity of human beings.

Regarding whether that is truly infinite or not is anyone's guess, but consider writing...it's all made from just twenty-six letters, right? Then are all books the same? No, definitely not. Are _any_ the same? Not really, not without plagiarism/mimicry. Are some more similar than others? Sure, some are very similar, but similar is not the same.

The variations even within a fairly small pool are massive, which is why even though a credit card has only 16 digits 0-9 there are 10,000,000,000,000,000 combinations of those ten numbers, which means you can effectively never stumble on the same thing 'accidentally'. Unless you cheat.

This is mainly why the 'give a chimp a typewriter and in a long enough timescale he will type out the works of Shakespeare' theory is, practically speaking, silly.


----------



## velo (Jan 27, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> Just trying to be clear here: So because this thread is about what we “know”, there are to be no “questions”?



No, questions are fine but they need to be on-topic for the thread.  Your response did not seem to be about the discussion at hand.  I agree that this particular question would be best answered in its own thread.  

velo, forum supervisor


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> Ah, but what if drawing from our own experiences, or the experiences of others, is what keeps us experiencing the same things? I mean, if we use the same ingredients, do we not get the same soup?



An interesting point.  What do you see as the alternative?


----------



## velo (Jan 27, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> This is mainly why the 'give a chimp a typewriter and in a long enough timescale he will type out the works of Shakespeare' theory is, practically speaking, silly.



It was actually an infinite number of chimpanzees on an infinite timescale, if I recall correctly.


----------



## velo (Jan 27, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> Ah, but what if drawing from our own experiences, or the experiences of others, is what keeps us experiencing the same things? I mean, if we use the same ingredients, do we not get the same soup?



I think that's missing the point.  As others have said, I can write about being a woman or being in space but it's only conjecture.  Sure I have a lot of data from other sources and could maybe pull it off but I don't think it would be as convincing as me writing about things I've experienced myself.  This doesn't mean it has to be a super-focused thing.  I have experienced the human condition since the moment of my birth and that encompasses a wide breadth of topics.  I have more than enough experience to fuel my writing for a very long time.  Now, if only I had the skill and imagination...  

Sure, maybe you have a style or even a genre that you write about but so do a lot of authors.  I don't see that as the same soup but as an area of expertise and those are two very different things.


----------



## Matchu (Jan 27, 2021)

The ‘original’ version was ‘give a chimpanzee your typewriter, and show him how to write Shakespeare sonnets.  You know he might just do it if you’re lucky.’  From memory...my memory not chimp.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 27, 2021)

In a way, writing for me is similar to my work as a design engineer. 

I would receive the specs and requirements, then would study it and ask questions. Then I would do rough drawings of what it would look like and how the internal components would fit together. I'd get more input, and do it again. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I couldn't hold it all back - which is when I would dive in and start committing the design to computer code, mechanical drawings, and electrical design.

In writing, the good idea pops into my head (this amounts to only about 2% of the junk flying between my ears). I then start taking notes in a paper note book - checking to see if the plot has legs and would be something I'd like to write. I go back and forth - lather, rinse, repeat - and the ideas crystalize and grow. Only then do I start in with Excel and Word to flesh it out. Finally, when I can't hold back the words anymore, I start the first draft.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 27, 2021)

velo said:


> It was actually an infinite number of chimpanzees on an infinite timescale, if I recall correctly.



Always wondered: If the timescale is infinite, does it matter how many chimpanzees there are?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2021)

indianroads said:


> In a way, writing for me is similar to my work as a design engineer.
> 
> I would receive the specs and requirements, then would study it and ask questions. Then I would do rough drawings of what it would look like and how the internal components would fit together. I'd get more input, and do it again. Lather, rinse, repeat, until I couldn't hold it all back - which is when I would dive in and start committing the design to computer code, mechanical drawings, and electrical design.
> 
> In writing, the good idea pops into my head (this amounts to only about 2% of the junk flying between my ears). I then start taking notes in a paper note book - checking to see if the plot has legs and would be something I'd like to write. I go back and forth - lather, rinse, repeat - and the ideas crystalize and grow. Only then do I start in with Excel and Word to flesh it out. Finally, when I can't hold back the words anymore, I start the first draft.



Indianroads brings up another good point, that hasn't really been explored in this thread, and that is 'knowing' your skill set, and utilizing that in how you approach writing.   And what type of writing you would be best suited for. 

 Originally, when I started to write my novel and someone said, "write what you know", I thought about my most previous job as a corporate auditor.  Did I just lose everyone?  Yeah, I know what a snoozer that would be eh?    Although people told me to start with short stories, I was drawn to a longer work -- a novel.  I think this has totally to do with my comfort level and skill set.  I had been doing large audits that often took a year to complete.  I wasn't easily intimidated by the vast amount of work that needed to be done over that period, and that you couldn't take a big picture approach, you could only focus on one little piece at a time. You create a framework to tie all the findings together and then draw your conclusions at the end.  Sound familiar? 

I would find it much harder to do short pieces, because I'm not a very dramatic writer and my use of the language is very direct and minimal. Perhaps not as conducive to providing instant recognition. I am in awe of those who post shorter works, and manage to get a big impact.  I find that daunting, and it scares me frankly.


----------



## clark (Jan 27, 2021)

Luckyscars et al-- Good grief! I will certainly do my part to head off this Perfect Storm, "signifying nothing", before it becomes Something. For reasons known only to the vagaries of memory, a line from John Ford's iconic US Cavalry vs them pesky Indians movie, _She Wore a Yellow Ribbon _(1949), is burgling around in my head. John Wayne, playing the role of a senior Officer, advises a junior Officer, "Never apologize, Son--it's a sign of weakness." Hmm. Luckyscars , you have requested an apology from me for misreading your post. You said my interpretation of your words was an "unwarranted and dramatic escalation." No, it was not. A "misreading" implies either that the misreader does not read very well at all and has ricocheted off the path entirely, or that there was something there, in words or style or whatever, to be misread in the first place. I am not the former kind of reader; you are not the latter kind of writer.

As we all know, on this or any other arena of this kind, we work in only ONE of the many facets of full communication. Were we sharing a pint, and we each said exactly what we wrote, facial expression, tone, body language, and a myriad of other factors would have prompted "wait! do you mean . . . ?" OR " . . . you can't be contending . . .!" OR "hmm--you need to clarify that for me." But we don't have that luxury, and I do apologize for failing to take that into account. I should have confined my response more strictly to the words on the page with the qualification, "your central point could be taken personally. I have addressed that issue in a Private Message to you". I respect your perspectives on the complex issues we address here. I assume you reciprocate. Let us return to our one-dimensional sandbox and play together. You can share my shovel . . . . . ..


----------



## clark (Jan 27, 2021)

To the proper business of this thread, viz, should one write primarily to what one "knows", various writers here have made a distinction between 1) the literal knowledge and information one has in a specific field of activity and 2) the mode/kind/genre one chooses in which to "convey" one's creative perspective.

On 1) I would suggest that _transferrable skills _are important. Consider this announcement: "_Algoma *Steel *is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. John Smith as CEO and CFO of the company, effective immediately. Mr. Smith comes from ten years of great success as CEO of Nabisco *Cereals*_. . . ." Whadda f__? Whether Mr. Smith has specific knowledge of the specific product is irrelevant. He'll pick that up as he goes along. Taylor makes this point when he says that his specific background in corporate auditing may be of limited interest, but the skills he developed in meticulous work with complex details, would stand him in good stead in working out the bits of his novel.

On 2) I would suggest one must consider audience (a point made by numerous of you). The 18th C in England and Europe has been labelled _the Age of Reason, _and in English the Heroic (or 'closed') couplet emerged as the dominant poetic form. Perfected by Alexander Pope, this form in which an idea or thought of vicious satiric thrust would be tightly realized within its two-line span BUT also function seamlessly as an integral part of a larger Argument, was an excellent mode for the intellectual confidence of that era. We have the luxury of more open choice in our more 'democratic' period. Wittgenstein, a philosopher of great influence on our current thinking about language, chose to frame his important _​Philosophical Investigations, _not in closely argued prose format but in a series of aphorisms, often only loosely related, giving  readers an opportunity to form their own bridges. Cormac McCarthy chooses conventional "and then--and then--and then . . . ." format for his novels, but writes in brilliantly poetic style. And each of us has the luxury of choosing ANY FORM that best suits what we hope to accomplish _for ourselves _as creative writers, because we do truly have an audience out there that is open to anything that makes sense vis-a-vis the 'message' we hope to convey.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Jan 27, 2021)

clark said:


> To the proper business of this thread, viz, should one write primarily to what one "knows", various writers here have made a distinction between 1) the literal knowledge and information one has in a specific field of activity and 2) the mode/kind/genre one chooses in which to "convey" one's creative perspective.
> 
> On 1) I would suggest that _transferrable skills _are important. Consider this announcement: "_Algoma *Steel *is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. John Smith as CEO and CFO of the company, effective immediately. Mr. Smith comes from ten years of great success as CEO of Nabisco *Cereals*_. . . ." Whadda f__? Whether Mr. Smith has specific knowledge of the specific product is irrelevant. He'll pick that up as he goes along. Taylor makes this point when he says that his specific background in corporate auditing may be of limited interest, but the skills he developed in meticulous work with complex details, would stand him in good stead in working out the bits of his novel.
> 
> On 2) I would suggest one must consider audience (a point made by numerous of you). The 18th C in England and Europe has been labelled _the Age of Reason, _and in English the Heroic (or 'closed') couplet emerged as the dominant poetic form. Perfected by Alexander Pope, this form in which an idea or thought of vicious satiric thrust would be tightly realized within its two-line span BUT also function seamlessly as an integral part of a larger Argument, was an excellent mode for the intellectual confidence of that era. We have the luxury of more open choice in our more 'democratic' period. Wittgenstein, a philosopher of great influence on our current thinking about language, chose to frame his important _​Philosophical Investigations, _not in closely argued prose format but in a series of aphorisms, often only loosely related, giving  readers an opportunity to form their own bridges. Cormac McCarthy chooses conventional "and then--and then--and then . . . ." format for his novels, but writes in brilliantly poetic style. And each of us has the luxury of choosing ANY FORM that best suits what we hope to accomplish _for ourselves _as creative writers, because we do truly have an audience out there that is open to anything that makes sense vis-a-vis the 'message' we hope to convey.



This post represents a years worth of googling and study for me. I'll never be an academic, but I have learned a lot about inferiority.


----------



## clark (Jan 27, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> This post represents a years worth of googling and study for me. I'll never be an academic, but I have learned a lot about inferiority.



AZ -- ​I have (and do) often puzzle over this term "Academic". I have decided that it is a pejorative, designed for pretentious asses who parade initials behind their names or regard their work at universities as a Great Good in its own right that gives them a place at the Head Table. Either way, "pretentious ass" seems to fit and why you might regard that label as one of value, eludes me. And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'inferiority. None. Such a label applies to no one I have read on these boards.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Jan 27, 2021)

clark said:


> AZ -- ​I have (and do) often puzzle over this term "Academic". I have decided that it is a pejorative, designed for pretentious asses who parade initials behind their names or regard their work at universities as a Great Good in its own right that gives them a place at the Head Table. Either way, "pretentious ass" seems to fit and why you might regard that label as one of value, eludes me. And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by 'inferiority. None. Such a label applies to no one I have read on these boards.



LOL. I mean academic in the truest sense of the word, but you know that. At least the re-imagining of academic allowed you to give me a nice compliment, so thank you.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Jan 27, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> No, because there is the barrier of perception and bias and, it must be said, ability.
> 
> It's like if you have one hundred artists sketch the same landscape, none of them will be exactly the same. Some of the sketches may be similar, some more than others, but there will be different things that are focused on, different strengths and weaknesses of perception and execution. One artist might be really focused on/good at bringing to life a tree, another a field, another the sea. In this case, when we are dealing with two outlets of human input (the subject and the object) the variations are even more endless because of the inherent complexity of human beings.



The simple cup works for me just fine here. What one puts in the cup, is said to be all that can come out. But cups and hats are different species, and do not function the same.

The Hat depends upon the wearer. U bring up ability.... Not all have the ability to wear the same Hat. Our social experiment seems to govern this Idea. 

Though it very well seems to be so, all that is confirmed is the momentum of the hive mind.

Viola! Physics is born!

Born out of a human desire to fit in and feel at home with his own species. Thus as you mention, the barriers, are self inflicted.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Jan 27, 2021)

The alternative is the same for all. All Experience occurs in the Mind, right? I mean, to say that something happened a certain way, as Velo had mentioned, just in another format, is almost, if not infinitely impossible to pinpoint due to differences in perception. Having said all this, something is clearly “there”, as any Experience of “solidity” will surely prove. But that Experience is only as solid as the Mind that encounters “it”. If one wants to come under the hive mind, one will never be more than allowed to be. The very physics are unquestionable.


----------



## velo (Jan 28, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Always wondered: If the timescale is infinite, does it matter how many chimpanzees there are?



What does Jane Goodall say? 

But yes, a single infinite vector is mathematically valid for the thought experiment.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 28, 2021)

clark said:


> To the proper business of this thread, viz, should one write primarily to what one "knows", various writers here have made a distinction between 1) the literal knowledge and information one has in a specific field of activity and 2) the mode/kind/genre one chooses in which to "convey" one's creative perspective.
> 
> On 1) I would suggest that _transferrable skills _are important. Consider this announcement: "_Algoma *Steel *is pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. John Smith as CEO and CFO of the company, effective immediately. Mr. Smith comes from ten years of great success as CEO of Nabisco *Cereals*_. . . ." Whadda f__? Whether Mr. Smith has specific knowledge of the specific product is irrelevant. He'll pick that up as he goes along. Taylor makes this point when he says that his specific background in corporate auditing may be of limited interest, but the skills he developed in meticulous work with complex details, would stand him in good stead in working out the bits of his novel.



As someone who has worked directly for a few CEO's or large and midsize corporations, I don't know whether the executive echelons of corporate America is the place to go for examples of skill. Exhibit A: Donald Trump. Exhibit B: Steve Jobs. Exhibit C: Elon Musk. These aren't massively skilled people, they just aren't, certainly not compared to those who actually design and manage their products under them. What they are, and what those designers are not, are marketers -- professional bullshit merchants who are able to persuade (or manipulate, even) people into believing in their product. Most CEO's don't do meticulous work with complex details. What they do, is make decisions based on what is put in front of their desk (usually incorporating the feedback of other, knowledgeable people) and then, most critically, convince other people that they are right, that they know best. 

Is that a skill? If we take a really loose view of what 'skill' means then, sure, you can say it's a skill. I'm not so sure, though. If we're going to take a view that convincing the crowd that the Emperor is not only not naked but wearing a suit of the finest silks is a skill, then all sorts of shallow (or even nefarious) things are skills that are transferrable. Suddenly being a good liar is a skill. So is being a prolific con artist. Charisma is a skill. There's a reason the most successful CEO's are often these things, too. But I don't think these are skills, I think they are personality traits. I think a lot of them are instinctual and some of them are worked on but, for the most part, there is no real effort put into honing them, they just are there in the person.

That being said, there is something to these men besides bullshit, for not all bullshitters are successful. If it's not transferable skill then what is it? I would argue that it is _transferable confidence _and _transferrable charisma _that actually are the root. All of these highly successful corporate men (it's mostly men) have the most incredible self-belief. It's almost hypnotic. Oh, I find them mostly incredibly loathsome, but I cannot help but envy these people who absolutely never seem to doubt themselves or their vision. Elon Musk is a prime example of a man who not only has ideas (we all have ideas) but possesses this absurd certainty that his ideas are the best, to the point he will not tolerate any argument to the contrary. This trait alone, it seems, with just a tiny spoonful of actual competency is absolutely enough to make it. 

So, how might that manifest itself in writing? Quite the same, I would think. Look, let's forget about knowledge a moment, because (1) This is fiction anyway, _knowing _has never been that important (2) People get all tangled up in what it means to 'know'. If you believe in your story strongly enough that you can channel that confidence into writing (if you can write with 'Trumpian' confidence') chances are -- so long that you are basically competent -- this whole issue of 'write what you know' won't even be that important because nobody in any great number will find reason to doubt you anyway. I have always thought 'write what you know' is less about what actually appears on the page and more about trying to get writers to overcome their neurosis. Writing fiction is inherently neurotic, for most people, because it involves a large commitment of time and effort with no certain reward and is, above all, an exercise in exposing one's deepest, darkest imaginings.

Ask most writers whether they feel more comfortable getting naked in front of a stranger or publishing the first, unedited draft of a steamy romance they have written, I bet most would sooner take off their pants. It's really hard to write, but 99% of it is psychological, it's NEVER about word count. In this thread alone, we have collaboratively already written a good size chunk of a novel's word count without hardly any collective mental difficulty or awareness that we had written so much and so easily -- *writing is easy, I am doing it right now in this post...it's everything else that goes with it that is hard. 

*So, write what you know (defined as you will) can be interpreted not so much about the end result but about the process, about ginning up the confidence in our ideas and the cojones to express them with confidence. There's some sound logic to that. I know people who have no problem filling a diary or online blog with pages after pages of narrative about their life but somehow find the idea of writing a similar narrative about a made up character that other people might see to be amazingly difficult and, again, this cannot be about 'not knowing what to write' because there really is no rule about what to write _and they_ _know _it. What it is, mostly, is not being comfortable with making it up and it being seen. 

So, write what you know fits perfectly for that. It's a way to 'bridge the gap' between the personal and the public, the secret journal and the bestselling novel. When you write what you know (defined as you will) you free yourself from at least a little bit of the self-doubt that makes writing difficult and that is _imposter syndrome._


----------



## Deleted member 65352 (Jan 28, 2021)

thanks lucky


----------



## indianroads (Jan 28, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> As someone who has worked directly for a few CEO's or large and midsize corporations, I don't know whether the executive echelons of corporate America is the place to go for examples of skill. Exhibit A: Donald Trump. Exhibit B: Steve Jobs. Exhibit C: Elon Musk. These aren't massively skilled people, they just aren't, certainly not compared to those who actually design and manage their products under them. What they are, and what those designers are not, are marketers -- professional bullshit merchants who are able to persuade (or manipulate, even) people into believing in their product. Most CEO's don't do meticulous work with complex details. What they do, is make decisions based on what is put in front of their desk (usually incorporating the feedback of other, knowledgeable people) and then, most critically, convince other people that they are right, that they know best.
> [...]



Absolutely true. All of the Silicon Valley CEO's I've encountered were 'marketeers', 'walking suits', 'marketing weenies' to those of us in engineering. We were of the apparently foolish POV that a good product will sell; whenever this was postulated by one of the senior engineers the marketeers laughed.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 1, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> As someone who has worked directly for a few CEO's or large and midsize corporations, I don't know whether the executive echelons of corporate America is the place to go for examples of skill. Exhibit A: Donald Trump. Exhibit B: Steve Jobs. Exhibit C: Elon Musk. These aren't massively skilled people, they just aren't, certainly not compared to those who actually design and manage their products under them. What they are, and what those designers are not, are marketers -- professional bullshit merchants who are able to persuade (or manipulate, even) people into believing in their product. Most CEO's don't do meticulous work with complex details. What they do, is make decisions based on what is put in front of their desk (usually incorporating the feedback of other, knowledgeable people) and then, most critically, convince other people that they are right, that they know best.
> 
> Is that a skill? If we take a really loose view of what 'skill' means then, sure, you can say it's a skill. I'm not so sure, though. If we're going to take a view that convincing the crowd that the Emperor is not only not naked but wearing a suit of the finest silks is a skill, then all sorts of shallow (or even nefarious) things are skills that are transferrable. Suddenly being a good liar is a skill. So is being a prolific con artist. Charisma is a skill. There's a reason the most successful CEO's are often these things, too. But I don't think these are skills, I think they are personality traits. I think a lot of them are instinctual and some of them are worked on but, for the most part, there is no real effort put into honing them, they just are there in the person.
> 
> That being said, there is something to these men besides bullshit, for not all bullshitters are successful. If it's not transferable skill then what is it? I would argue that it is _transferable confidence _and _transferrable charisma _that actually are the root. All of these highly successful corporate men (it's mostly men) have the most incredible self-belief. It's almost hypnotic. Oh, I find them mostly incredibly loathsome, but I cannot help but envy these people who absolutely never seem to doubt themselves or their vision. Elon Musk is a prime example of a man who not only has ideas (we all have ideas) but possesses this absurd certainty that his ideas are the best, to the point he will not tolerate any argument to the contrary. This trait alone, it seems, with just a tiny spoonful of actual competency is absolutely enough to make it.



First off no one said that CEOs do meticulous work with complex details.  That was something that clark had attributed to me as a corporate auditor.  I just wanted to clear that up, in case anyone misunderstood.  

While I find your description of a CEO's skills amusing...it's limited. Yes, they usually have a flare for marketing, but I would say their greatest skill is their understanding of people.  What do customers want?  What motivates their staff?  How do you get the most out of your suppliers?    I remember being in a CEO's office, after I delivered the news that the company was over-inventoried. She picked up the phone and immediately started calling suppliers.  Her tone, kind and direct.  No bullshit at all. She asked them, "Can you help us out?"  I would have never thought this would have an effect, but it did. Slowly over the next few days we got suppliers to agree to take goods back. The thing she understood that I didn't, is that when you are nice, people want to help you.  I'd never seen anything like it and I never forgot it.  

I don't know much about Elon Musk, but Steve Jobs was a master at understanding people.  He created a completely new structure that many tech firms used as a model.  When HP and Xerox went tall with a divisional structure, he went flat with matrix structure.  This way he broke down silos so the talent in the organization could be utilized through-out all divisions and product development teams.  It was brilliant! I remember when it hit the Strategy textbooks. The business students just ate it up.

Another CEO I had direct contact with was Jimmy Pattison, CEO of the Pattison Group.  He started out with the reputation for firing the bottom guy in sales each month.  I'm not saying it's nice, but it worked.  A kind of self-management. And most of the guys who were fired, got snapped up by other firms because everyone wanted to know about  the inside workings of the Pattison firm.

I could go on about this stuff forever...but my point is simply that most successful CEOs are highly skilled - bullshit just won’t cut it, even if you can get people to agree with you. 



luckyscars said:


> So, write what you know fits perfectly for that. It's a way to 'bridge the gap' between the personal and the public, the secret journal and the bestselling novel. When you write what you know (defined as you will) you free yourself from at least a little bit of the self-doubt that makes writing difficult and that is _imposter syndrome._



This I agree with 100%!


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 2, 2021)

There is “writing about what you know”, I get that. But “knowledge” is quite the limiting monster. One cannot Experience outside of knowledge, without causing trauma to the Mind. At least, not so easily. Sometimes that trauma is a good thing. Depending upon how it is gone about. But to write outside of knowledge seems to be more alluring, as it opens the eyes to things before unseen, or rather, unseeable.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 2, 2021)

Taylor said:


> First off no one said that CEOs do meticulous work with complex details.  That was something that clark had attributed to me as a corporate auditor.  I just wanted to clear that up, in case anyone misunderstood.




Yeah, I see that now -- him referring to you as 'his' confused me because I know you're female. Apologies for the misquote. Rest of the argument holds the same.




> While I find your description of a CEO's skills amusing...it's limited. Yes, they usually have a flare for marketing, but I would say their greatest skill is their understanding of people.  What do customers want?  What motivates their staff?  How do you get the most out of your suppliers?    I remember being in a CEO's office, after I delivered the news that the company was over-inventoried. She picked up the phone and immediately started calling suppliers.  Her tone, kind and direct.  No bullshit at all. She asked them, "Can you help us out?"  I would have never thought this would have an effect, but it did. Slowly over the next few days we got suppliers to agree to take goods back. The thing she understood that I didn't, is that when you are nice, people want to help you.  I'd never seen anything like it and I never forgot it.





> I don't know much about Elon Musk, but Steve Jobs was a master at understanding people.  He created a completely new structure that many tech firms used as a model.  When HP and Xerox went tall with a divisional structure, he went flat with matrix structure.  This way he broke down silos so the talent in the organization could be utilized through-out all divisions and product development teams.  It was brilliant! I remember when it hit the Strategy textbooks. The business students just ate it up.
> 
> Another CEO I had direct contact with was Jimmy Pattison, CEO of the Pattison Group.  He started out with the reputation for firing the bottom guy in sales each month.  I'm not saying it's nice, but it worked.  A kind of self-management. And most of the guys who were fired, got snapped up by other firms because everyone wanted to know about  the inside workings of the Pattison firm.
> 
> I could go on about this stuff forever...but my point is simply that most successful CEOs are highly skilled - bullshit just won’t cut it, even if you can get people to agree with you.




I think we just have a fundamentally different view on what qualifies as a skill versus a personality trait. To me, a skill is something that not only can be learned but also taught and, to some extent, explained. 

 I don't think it's possible to teach people to be a CEO. Not really. While I realize CEO-dom may contain various skills within it,  the fact those 'skills' -- whether it's a single or a thousand makes no matter -- cannot be reliably taught in a way that achieves a similar, or at least comparable, outcome leads me to believe that the difference is because of personality and, to some extent, luck. Not skill.

 While arguably personality affects the execution of *anything*, it's all a question of scale. In the corporate world, mediocre workers often rise to the top based on people liking them -- I think we've all experienced that at some point, right? It's not a meritocracy, that's for sure. The difference between a bartender who makes $20 a night in tips and one that makes $200 is, more often than not, based not on skill but personality, figuring out who to talk to and how to talk to them. 

Regarding what those differences are? I don't know but I think, yeah, a lot of it comes down to sociopathy. Statistically, around 1% of the population is thought to be sociopathic, which just so happens to coincide with the approximate percentage of the population who are in highly successful leadership positions. 

Correlation is NOT causation, of course, and I'm not saying every CEO is a psychopath or anything, only that you can easily draw parallels between the kind of person who 'knows how to be successful' and the kind of person who 'knows how to not care about people'; that the Venn diagram for those two different 'skills' seems like it would overlap at the kind of guy who would make a rule to fire their bottom salesperson _regardless of the reason why that person may be at the bottom_ and somehow figure out how to market it as 'self-management', convincing the world that these people go off to sunlit uplands elsewhere (which I do not believe for a single second). 

This, in my opinion, is a great display of instinct but not intellect and certainly not an example of skilled management - don't care how many interviews it gets you with Forbes. Plenty of salespeople who have a bad January have a great February and certainly a great December. Examples of personality, priorities and motivations? Sure. Skills? No, not in my opinion.

Anyway, possibly getting a bit off topic there but interesting little detour, thanks!



NobodyParticular said:


> There is “writing about what you know”, I get that. But “knowledge” is quite the limiting monster. One cannot Experience outside of knowledge, without causing trauma to the Mind. At least, not so easily. Sometimes that trauma is a good thing. Depending upon how it is gone about. But to write outside of knowledge seems to be more alluring, as it opens the eyes to things before unseen, or rather, unseeable.



I don't know what you mean by 'trauma to the mind', but why does knowledge matter in fiction? 

I am a lawyer, I know how that job works, yet the number of times I see it portrayed inaccurately in movies and TV is...well, I just don't even hardly notice anymore. 

I don't notice because it doesn't matter, it's fiction, and the idea was never to accurately 'know' but to convincingly 'pretend'.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 2, 2021)

When writing about "reality", one is still coming from a perspective, and right there the so-called "facts" break down. I am not seeking to entertain, as before I was not sure how I wanted to go about the delivery of information. I am somewhat considering an "esoteric" delivery. To purposely make one question what it is I am even talking about. Any who would continue to read past the opening few pages must be on board with the delivery, else they would not keep going. I realize this cuts down drastically on the numbers, but what is more important to me, is that the information gets to the ones who it engages.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 2, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> When writing about "reality", one is still coming from a perspective, and right there the so-called "facts" break down.



I disagree. The filtering of objective reality through subjective experience does not negate said reality. After all, how else would you perceive reality? 

This is the one place where I do agree with "write what you know" -- when writing about facts, have your facts straight. No mixing fiction in with memoir or history thankyouverymuch.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 3, 2021)

Well sir, on this topic, I am coming from a biblical perspective on miracles. To reach said miracles, is said to require us to "believe" past the initial presentation to the senses. Thus requiring Faith, but Faith in the Truth, as recorded by the apostles. I'm not trying to make this a "religious" discussion, as much as laying a foundation for my train of thought. If we seek to Experience outside of our current Experience, then something outside of this current Experience is necessary. I mean, again, one can only pour out of the Cup what one has put in it. To say then that we have all things already, is only to repeat the same processes, gaining more momentum, and merely changing an aspect of the Experience typical underneath the lying façade. It is the façade which is deceiving, and is therefore my quite plain reason for discrediting the scientific method. This in turn, dissolves "factual data", or at least demeans it. Some may say, "dissolves" it. Thus taking what is firm, and making it a Water. Reverse engineering, in a Way.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 3, 2021)

Red Sky at Night was a Civil War book I think written by a man who never set one foot in the civil war and people who lived through civil war battels swore by the realistic writing.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 3, 2021)

Oh Red Sky at Morning, I think Red Sky at Night was a pop song Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh. ha


----------



## Taylor (Feb 3, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> When writing about "reality", one is still coming from a perspective, and right there the so-called "facts" break down. I am not seeking to entertain, as before I was not sure how I wanted to go about the delivery of information. I am somewhat considering an "esoteric" delivery. To purposely make one question what it is I am even talking about. Any who would continue to read past the opening few pages must be on board with the delivery, else they would not keep going. I realize this cuts down drastically on the numbers, but what is more important to me, is that the information gets to the ones who it engages.



This might be slightly off topic, but this thread seems to generate a lot good discussions, so I'll proceed.  I like this approach to delivering "what you know".  I would read on for sure.  But I would be totally pissed off, if at the end, you didn't deliver something that changed my perspective in some way, or the information wasn't valuable.  Otherwise, I might feel like you tried to trick me for no purpose.  If it was just a quirky message with no redeeming qualities that would not be very satisfying.  Do you know what I mean?

When crime writer Charles Willeford gave students in his "Classic Detective Novel" course a handout that began, "The detective story is a kind of intellectual game. The author must be fair with the reader, because games should be fair. The author may outwit the reader, but he should not cheat by trickiness or deceptions."

https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/5-ways-to-surprise-your-reader-without-it-feeling-like-a-trick

I am curious though, what type of messages do you wish to deliver?  Are they educational in any way? 

I might start a thread on this because it's really interesting.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 3, 2021)

Indeed, I fully know what you mean. I think we have all wasted money at the box office for things that seemed highly intriguing, just to be let down moments later. As for my subject, it surely has a part in everyone's Mind, but not all have taken the time to search it out. Without breaking the laws of the ancients, I cannot disclose the topic openly, which in turn is the Sport on my end, and the satisfaction on the reader's end as well. That is, if I have done my job with any skill. The delivery ensures the growth of a Seed. What that Seed is though, is one thing from me, another for the reader. All depends upon the preparation of the Ground, which is the Husbandman's joy. This type of delivery intrigues me and brings me the utmost Joy.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 3, 2021)

I'm sure this has changed. Back in the day it was 'write from your own experience' which is completely different from 'write what you know'. You can't write much of what you know because there's very little you CAN know. You can think you know or believe you know but you can't know. Setting something in stone is thinking you 'know' and it's only accepting you don't know that keeps you learning and evolving. In essence, not knowing is at the heart of wisdom. 

I prefer 'write from your own experience', it's clearer and less philosophically bankrupt.


----------



## EternalGreen (Feb 3, 2021)

Autobiographical allegory is a thing.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 3, 2021)

"Philosophically bankrupt", eh?

That surely depends upon the Seed. From which is grown the Ingredients for a Stew. Philosophy is not as empty as some imagine. They who imagine Philosophy to be devoid of substance, have yet to see the manifestation of their own Void. The imagine this Void to be utterly empty, and therefore fool themselves into believing something is and is not, at the same time, in the same space. Giving life, to death, more or less. 

This is not Philosophy.

Philosophy is the giver of Life, to those who will find "her" 

IMO, of course.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 3, 2021)

EternalGreen said:


> Autobiographical allegory is a thing.



So interesting that you bring this up! I am just learning about it now. If you google it, Franco Zeffirelli's _Tea With Mussolini_ comes up as an example. I take it that the "allegory" piece is a hidden meaning, i.e. moral or political, and that's what differentiates it from just an autobiography. I believe in his case it was political.

It strikes me as a robust way to 'write what you know', while delivering a powerful message. Haven't we all experienced something that would be beneficial to share with others if we frame it in a way that is educational or philosophical?


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 3, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> "Philosophically bankrupt", eh?
> 
> That surely depends upon the Seed. From which is grown the Ingredients for a Stew. Philosophy is not as empty as some imagine. They who imagine Philosophy to be devoid of substance, have yet to see the manifestation of their own Void. The imagine this Void to be utterly empty, and therefore fool themselves into believing something is and is not, at the same time, in the same space. Giving life, to death, more or less.
> 
> ...



But just like science, philosophy is a process of constant questioning. It's not static. 'knowing' is. Through philosophy we can extrapolate a skeleton on which to hang some meat, but that meat must come from somewhere and it sure as hell isn't knowing, it's not knowing 'the quest to know' or rather 'finding AN answer' not 'finding THE answer' that enlightens us. She's not the giver of knowledge. There is no giver of knowledge. The 'other' is a mere obfuscation of thought. WE are she and she is us. We haven't got faith because God exists, God exists because we needed somewhere to hang our faith.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 3, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> I'm sure this has changed. Back in the day it was 'write from your own experience' which is completely different from 'write what you know'. You can't write much of what you know because there's very little you CAN know. You can think you know or believe you know but you can't know. Setting something in stone is thinking you 'know' and it's only accepting you don't know that keeps you learning and evolving. In essence, not knowing is at the heart of wisdom.
> 
> I prefer 'write from your own experience', it's clearer and less philosophically bankrupt.



It's still very open to confusion, though. A lot (most?) people hear 'experience' and think it literally has to mean something you have done -- the word tends to mean some sort of 'hands on' knowledge. _Haven't stepped foot in France, therefore can't write a book set in France._ 

I agree that there are sort of self-defeating problems with the word 'know', though. Because, yes, to believe you 'know' something is, often, to seal yourself from the advantages of learning. Often, the more you know about something the less motivated you are to learn more. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but learning can lead to diminishing returns as underlying knowledge and the biases that go with it make open-mindedness less and the chance to change perspectives more difficult. Which is why most children learn better than most adults, especially older adults.

I like the idea of 'write from your own perspective'. I think that is a good compromise, because in order to have a true perspective you have to know (or at least 'know') something. I still think the veracity of knowledge isn't all that important in fiction. Most people don't REALLY care if the fictionalized battle is different, even quite vastly different, from the real one. But an absence of a fully fleshed PERSPECTIVE on [event] or [time period] or [whatever] causes one to be derivative by default and for that insecurity to bleed into the story.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 3, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> No mixing fiction in with memoir or history thankyouverymuch.



What's wrong with historical fiction? Or is this just personal druthers?


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 3, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> It's still very open to confusion, though. A lot (most?) people hear 'experience' and think it literally has to mean something you have done -- the word tends to mean some sort of 'hands on' knowledge. _Haven't stepped foot in France, therefore can't write a book set in France._
> 
> I agree that there are sort of self-defeating problems with the word 'know', though. Because, yes, to believe you 'know' something is, often, to seal yourself from the advantages of learning. Often, the more you know about something the less motivated you are to learn more. It doesn't have to be that way, of course, but learning can lead to diminishing returns as underlying knowledge and the biases that go with it make open-mindedness less and the chance to change perspectives more difficult. Which is why most children learn better than most adults, especially older adults.
> 
> I like the idea of 'write from your own perspective'. I think that is a good compromise, because in order to have a true perspective you have to know (or at least 'know') something. I still think the veracity of knowledge isn't all that important in fiction. Most people don't REALLY care if the fictionalized battle is different, even quite vastly different, from the real one. But an absence of a fully fleshed PERSPECTIVE on [event] or [time period] or [whatever] causes one to be derivative by default and for that insecurity to bleed into the story.



I can see what you mean about 'write from your own perspective' but in the end, isn't that more limiting than 'experience'? I don't know, you could be right. At the end of the day though, this is a rather pedantic breakdown of quite a trite saying that for some reason has morphed over the years into an even more trite and confusing saying.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 3, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> But just like science, philosophy is a process of constant questioning. It's not static. 'knowing' is. Through philosophy we can extrapolate a skeleton on which to hang some meat, but that meat must come from somewhere and it sure as hell isn't knowing, it's not knowing 'the quest to know' or rather 'finding AN answer' not 'finding THE answer' that enlightens us. She's not the giver of knowledge. There is no giver of knowledge. The 'other' is a mere obfuscation of thought. WE are she and she is us. We haven't got faith because God exists, God exists because we needed somewhere to hang our faith.



Oh my, and now we get into the Meat. Friend, please consider what anything "static" is founded upon?

Find a way to prove "existence", outside the "existence" itself? Find any Experience at all, outside of Mind?

It cannot be done. So therein reveals a Truth. But this does not get searched out by many, for one thing. For two, the Experience of lies believed does not justify the lie as Truth. This is not philosophical, in the lay sense, but is Experiential Truth, that even the Letter confirms. 

Allow me to go further in explanation. What is "solidity"? 

Can you touch "it"?

No. But you can Experience the Manifestation of Solidity. Thus, some thing "solid".

Where does that Experience occur?

Out there? Out where?

Some thing IS "there", indeed, but, "where" is "there"?

I have been clear. What stands in opposition is "the opposer"


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 3, 2021)

NobodyParticular said:


> Oh my, and now we get into the Meat. Friend, please consider what anything "static" is founded upon?
> 
> Find a way to prove "existence", outside the "existence" itself? Find any Experience at all, outside of Mind?
> 
> ...



Some things move, some things don't. Some things expand and some things shrink. We can't 'know' because that negates movement. That leaves us only one option if we are to make sense of existence. We have to assume a position in order to formulate an outcome OR we assume nothing and never reach a position. Does the table I rest my laptop on exist? Does the laptop I'm typing on exist? If I assumed it didn't, would that leave me with an answer? We can magnify and magnify until we prove nothing exists, in the same way as, if you dropped a ball and then halved the distance to the floor continuously, you could argue the ball never hits the floor. 

Yes, solidity can be argued away but without it you end up arguing nothing. I see God as a faith sized hole. The hole doesn't prove the existence of God, but it does give us a position from which to argue. I can't hold an empty hand out and say I've peeled an onion. I have to at least have something left of the onion to relate the process. 

Sometimes you can go too far! lol.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 3, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> I can see what you mean about 'write from your own perspective' but in the end, isn't that more limiting than 'experience'? I don't know, you could be right. At the end of the day though, this is a rather pedantic breakdown of quite a trite saying that for some reason has morphed over the years into an even more trite and confusing saying.



Yeah, I mean, any proverb is a failure the moment it becomes open to a dozen or more interpretations, no doubt.

I still maintain the underlying thought has value, though. It's not good advice (because of the confusion) but it's a good framework. 

Let's consider it a different way: _Don't write about that which you do not understand._ 

Sometimes, simply inverting an instruction can help. For instance, "eat only clean snow" is confusing (WHAT DOES CLEAN SNOW LOOK LIKE? HOW CAN WE TELL?) but "don't eat yellow snow" is not. 

We can all agree -- hopefully -- that avoiding writing ignorantly is bad, even if we cannot necessarily all agree that writing 'knowledgeably' is always necessary.


----------



## NobodyParticular (Feb 3, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I disagree. The filtering of objective reality through subjective experience does not negate said reality. After all, how else would you perceive reality?
> 
> This is the one place where I do agree with "write what you know" -- when writing about facts, have your facts straight. No mixing fiction in with memoir or history thankyouverymuch.



Is there a Reality that we cast shadows upon? Surely. Is that at all to say that what we Experience "is" that Reality? How can it possibly be? The very invention of a Drive-In Theater should speak volumes to the Seeker of Truth. Plato saw it, as do the ones manipulating the "free will choices" of the masses who these days are willingly choosing to have their freedoms taken away, all so the lying image creator can remain "all-powerful". 

As for having facts correct, I have to agree. But the Experience is not the same for all. What goes up, does not always have to come down. Just because the hive-mind says so, does not make it so. It merely means one has quite the Momentum to fight, quite the fire to withstand. But, should one do that, the purification of that which Absolutely IS, would be required to Manifest. Taking what form though? Mine? Yours? Theirs? 

No.

His.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 3, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> What's wrong with historical fiction? Or is this just personal druthers?



Ah, I should have been clearer. What I have a problem with is the intentional confusion of fiction and fact. Historical fiction is clearly fiction, though set in a historical period, just like realistic fiction is clearly fiction, though its setting is real. 

What I mean is something being presented as memoir or history, but with fictional or exaggerated aspects. Examples:

1. the poems of "Araki Yasusada" a "Japanese Hiroshima survivor" who turned out to be invented by a poet who was using his name and invented biography to publish poetry
_2. Spirit Car_, which contains some real history but intentionally confuses it with invented history, so that the reader does not know what is fact and what is speculation
3. the Gospel of Thomas, which combines what may be real recorded sayings of the historical Jesus with the author's (who was not, in fact, Thomas) own philosophical/spiritual ideas. 

Of course, the intent behind all these examples is different. "Araki Yasusada" was maybe just a way to get poems sold, maybe a weird, misguided experiment. The author of _Spirit Car, _on the other hand, has said that she believes history is about narrative (with the sense of meta-narrative or myth) and not fact; her looseness with history comes from her disbelief in objective historical fact. The Gospel of Thomas, probably, was written to promote Gnosticism. But though the goals are different, some being more unsavory than others, the effect is the same: the reader cannot (in fact, is not allowed to) distinguish truth and untruth. Real Fact (faith in reality!) is compromised. 

Historical fiction, on the other hand, is not in the business of eroding history. There's a reason "historical" is the adjective and "fiction" is the noun. Because its primary purpose is to be fiction. No one reads historical fiction thinking that it really happened; they read it thinking it could have happened, or it would be plausible for it to happen. That is very different from fiction being presented as fact.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 3, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Ah, I should have been clearer. What I have a problem with is the intentional confusion of fiction and fact. Historical fiction is clearly fiction, though set in a historical period, just like realistic fiction is clearly fiction, though its setting is real.
> 
> What I mean is something being presented as memoir or history, but with fictional or exaggerated aspects.



Not that I necessarily disagree with this standard, but it does seem often selective. 

Like, it would be impossible to ignore the irony. Because “something being presented as memoir or history, but with fictional or exaggerated aspects” is, unless one is a Christian fundamentalist, surely a perfect description for The Bible, isn’t it? Even most mainstream Christians don’t believe various events — Noah’s Ark, for instance — actually happened anything remotely like as written, yet the text presents them as history and somehow that is not problematic?

I assume subjective judgments regarding intent has actually everything to do with it, then? We don’t know the intent behind the people who wrote the Bible for sure and obviously we can imagine their motivation as benign or insidious depending on how we feel and that’s okay. But it doesn’t seem quite right to say “false/exaggerated history is not okay” in any absolute sense and carve out an exception for the Bible and other religious books?


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 3, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Not that I necessarily disagree with this standard, but it does seem often selective.
> 
> Like, it would be impossible to ignore the irony. Because “something being presented as memoir or history, but with fictional or exaggerated aspects” is, unless one is a Christian fundamentalist, surely a perfect description for The Bible, isn’t it? Even most mainstream Christians don’t believe various events — Noah’s Ark, for instance — actually happened anything remotely like as written, yet the text presents them as history and somehow that is not problematic?
> 
> I assume subjective judgments regarding intent has actually everything to do with it, then? We don’t know the intent behind the people who wrote the Bible for sure and obviously we can imagine their motivation as benign or insidious depending on how we feel and that’s okay. But it doesn’t seem quite right to say “false/exaggerated history is not okay” in any absolute sense and carve out an exception for the Bible and other religious books?



I appreciate your point. It would be an act of intellectual dishonesty if I made any exception for the Bible. But I do not make exceptions. Any part of the Bible written as history, I take as history.

But I would disagree that all parts of the Bible are presented as straight history. Surely you wouldn't argue that the Psalms are meant to be taken as history, and not poetry? Or that when Isaiah describes the trees of the fields clapping their hands, he means it literally? The Bible is a book of books, and contains multiple genres, including history, poetry, Jewish wisdom literature, and epistles. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I have heard that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (containing the Creation account, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel) are very different in style from Genesis 12 on -- that they, in the original Hebrew, are much more poetic than the rest of the book (also, I do think the Flood really happened, btw, but it seems reasonable to assume "the whole world" refers to the known world, which would have been the Middle Eastern Basin). It certainly would be problematic in my mind if something like the Six Days of creation were meant to be taken as history -- but look at the text! Even in the English, I think the poetry of the account comes out: first of all, there are two separate Creation accounts (1 and 2), with events in different order and prominence. Does this not imply that the author intended the "timeline" to be a poetic construction? 

But again, if it's written as history, yup, I view it as historical fact. So that's Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Chronicles, Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, quite a lot of the Old Testament, actually. But this creates no dissonance in my mind: after all, my entire faith hinges on the belief that Jesus really and actually rose from the dead, so it isn't much of a stretch in my mind that God parted the Red Sea, or knocked down the statue of Dagon, or any other miraculous account. Heck, I've seen with my own eyes somebody's leg get healed. If that makes me a fundamentalist, I guess you can call me a fundamentalist.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## SueC (Feb 3, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Not that I necessarily disagree with this standard, but it does seem often selective.
> 
> Like, it would be impossible to ignore the irony. Because “something being presented as memoir or history, but with fictional or exaggerated aspects” is, unless one is a Christian fundamentalist, surely a perfect description for The Bible, isn’t it? Even most mainstream Christians don’t believe various events — Noah’s Ark, for instance — actually happened anything remotely like as written, yet the text presents them as history and somehow that is not problematic?
> 
> I assume subjective judgments regarding intent has actually everything to do with it, then? We don’t know the intent behind the people who wrote the Bible for sure and obviously we can imagine their motivation as benign or insidious depending on how we feel and that’s okay. But it doesn’t seem quite right to say “false/exaggerated history is not okay” in any absolute sense and carve out an exception for the Bible and other religious books?



Lucky, your comments made me think of perception. You know, how everyone can see the same event differently? You seem focused on the Bible as an example of history with fictional aspects and I agree with you that a lot of the stories in the Bible could, rightfully, be seen as parables, rather than factual stories. But there will be people, of course, who believe it is all factual, and even the authors of the Bible may have felt that what they were writing was the truth, as inspired by God. But leaving the Bible aside for a moment . . .  okay, this is a little bit of a stray, but today I saw this clip of a shop owner in Florida who stood before the news cameras and said he absolutely does not believe that over 400,000 people have died from the virus, and that the virus is not a real thing. Many, many more people believe it is a real thing, that we are in a pandemic, but apparently this guy does not. And he is not alone. So maybe some things we think of as fiction, is reality to others and visa versa. Just saying . . .


----------



## MistWolf (Feb 3, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Ah, I should have been clearer. What I have a problem with is the intentional confusion of fiction and fact. Historical fiction is clearly fiction, though set in a historical period, just like realistic fiction is clearly fiction, though its setting is real.
> 
> What I mean is something being presented as memoir or history, but with fictional or exaggerated aspects. Examples:
> 
> ...



Remember- there's not much separating history from hysteria


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 4, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Yeah, I mean, any proverb is a failure the moment it becomes open to a dozen or more interpretations, no doubt.
> 
> I still maintain the underlying thought has value, though. It's not good advice (because of the confusion) but it's a good framework.
> 
> ...



Well, exactly. As long as the meaning eventually filters through, no matter how ambiguous it is, it's going to be helpful. It might fall apart in the analysis but it stands you in good stead if you take it as a rule of thumb.


----------



## MistWolf (Feb 4, 2021)

LouiseVoillemin said:


> Red Sky at Night was a Civil War book I think written by a man who never set one foot in the civil war and people who lived through civil war battels swore by the realistic writing.


We know a lot more than we realize and this is a perfect example. Although the author of this book never fought in the Civil War, the author still wrote what they knew. What they knew was how to suspend the reader's disbelief. The author knew how to evoke emotions making the writing seem real.

It's the same way pre-space flight authors wrote captivating stories about traveling between worlds. None of the them have ever done it, but they knew how to make readers feel like they were in ship hurling through space.

Take stock of your knowledge, skils and experiences. You'll see you have a larger pool to draw from than you thought.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

Writing is a sort of sorcery. Taking someone in another world for a bit. And the ability to do that doesn't have to be you know how to describe every knob on a nuclear submarine. Some writers it does feel like magic. The imagination is a wonderful thing. I am recently re-watching some of my favorite Netflix series. One is the Kominsky Method I just love it. I love the writing. And Michael Douglass plays a famous acting teacher. And he talks about what is acting. We are playing god. And I think the same is with all creative endeavors we are playing god.  So go and play god and pretend you are powerful and all knowing. This is my world. Anyhoo, although I agree writing about familiar topics that mean something to us are a good tool. Like a can opener is a tool. The real important stuff is the things we totally make up. Creativity is very interesting.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> I appreciate your point. It would be an act of intellectual dishonesty if I made any exception for the Bible. But I do not make exceptions. Any part of the Bible written as history, I take as history.



You absolutely are making an exception, though. This isn't a question of belief in God or adherence to Christianity, which is irrelevant, but of fact vs. non-fact - what is 'history' versus what is 'non-history'. 

Your criticism of 'Spirit Car' was that it '*contains some real history but intentionally confuses it with invented history, so that the reader does not know what is fact and what is speculation*'. < That is a perfect definition for a lot of the Bible. Remember, this isn't a question of belief, but of simply applying the standards you are using toward _other _books _equally_ to this one book that you happen to like and believe in. This isn't an 'opinion' or 'an attack' on Christianity but a reflection on the standards applied to historical/psuedo-historical texts generally and making sure we are not cherry picking based on prestige, power or personal affection.

The Bible contains some real history, blended with invented history. Nobody can disagree with that statement, whether they're a Christian or not, unless they want to argue that *every word* of the Bible is *literally* true -- in which case cold, hard reality disagrees. The only two debatable parts then are (1) Whether readers don't know what parts are fact vs. speculation and (2) Whether that confusion is intentional -- i.e. whether it is the fault of the author's writing or the reader's reading.

 (1) We know that readers do not know what parts of the Bible are fact vs. speculation, because they argue and disagree about that constantly, which you detail in your post.

(2) I don't know how anyone can argue the confusion is not at least sometimes intentional, unless they want to claim that the author of Genesis had no idea that, for example, human beings lived to 950 years old or had such a wildly different meaning behind what a 'year' meant that they actually were trying to say Noah only lived to, say, 80 years...or whatever the biologically possible lifespan of a human being could be. In other words, we would have to write off an awful lot of the Bible's authorship as being incredibly ignorant to escape the accusation of fraudulent intent behind those 'factual' statements concerning people who the same book claims existed.

 But...let's say you can somehow prove that the writer was not confused, ignorant or lying. Let's say that actually a man in Biblical times living to 950 years old was possible and/or '950 years' actually did translate into something quite feasible in some ancient calendar that was misinterpreted (and that has not yet been discovered to exist), at least enough to make it credible, if not factually watertight. You then have to do the same thing for ALL the other controversial, scientifically dubious, historically unsubstantiated or generally incredible events or facts (which would be absolutely anything anybody could reasonably read as being fact) that appear throughout the portion of the text that asserts itself to be 'true'. This is simply not possible to do. 

For example, with Jesus, you may well believe He rose from the dead, walked on water, created food from thin air, etc. As a 'belief' that is fine, by the way. But it is NOT fine as a statement of fact, because there is no evidence for it. Regardless, it is undoubtedly presented (and frequently believed) as something that actually happened, that could happen. It's not some small detail, either. The resurrection forms the cornerstone of the book's messaging. This is no different than North Korean 'historians' claiming that Kim Il Sung shot fifty elephants at the age of eight or whatever. These are not historical facts by any standard we otherwise measure historical factuality.

_So, why is that intellectually okay?_

Without explaining why it is okay, how are you to defend it against the charge that the Bible 'intentionally confuses real history with invented history to mislead people'? How are you going to on the one hand say that _The Gospel Of Thomas _is a problem when, by any logic, the formula behind its creation ("...combines what may be real recorded sayings of the historical Jesus with the author's own philosophical/spiritual ideas) is exactly the same as the formula behind the authorship of the Bible?

How can you, with straight face, speak of the importance of factual veracity in modern historical accounts while accepting as history-beyond-reproach this one, very old historical book, in which huge swathes of its content have either definitely not been proven (the 950 year old man) or actually disproven (everything in the world was created in six days) or just straight up contradictory to known reality (a man can rise from the dead, two of every animal can fit inside a boat, an ocean can be parted)? 

It's fine if you want to appeal to belief. Nobody can stop you from doing that. But in doing so you're obviously applying a double standard, carving exceptions and designating Things You Believe In as sacred cows, immune from intellectual failure, and it's a bit silly to pretend you aren't doing that. You would not accept these outlandish 'facts' about 950 year old men if they appeared in a different book, I suggest. 

Therefore, I think you ought to just say _"I consider the Bible outside of this standard, purely due to my own personal beliefs that find it to be true to me, and I realize this is intellectually inconsistent but it is fundamental to my faith and I do not have to defend it further."_ That would be fine. You may then find it a matter of good form to further clarify: _"In the meantime, I shall refrain from requiring other authors to 'get facts straight' in their books which I don't believe in, lest I be that most Christian of pariahs: A hypocrite."_


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

There is this great Steve Martin video of him playing the banjo. Atheist Ain't got any Art. I love it. I grew up around wonderful art due to going to church. The stained glass windows the sculptures and paintings. None of which I would have been aware of without all the art I grew up with. I am a big art person. Art is from god. Creative people are
playing god in a way. Go forth be creative make art write dance sing paint sculpt cook sew garden take care of people be pretty be funny dress well do all the creative beautiful things of creativity. And watch that Steve Martin song. And just be glad for all the great art in the world. Atheist ain't got any art.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> We know a lot more than we realize and this is a perfect example. Although the author of this book never fought in the Civil War, the author still wrote what they knew. What they knew was how to suspend the reader's disbelief. The author knew how to evoke emotions making the writing seem real.
> 
> It's the same way pre-space flight authors wrote captivating stories about traveling between worlds. None of the them have ever done it, but they knew how to make readers feel like they were in ship hurling through space.
> 
> Take stock of your knowledge, skils and experiences. You'll see you have a larger pool to draw from than you thought.



May I take the Dumb and Dumber Award. In an Elvisy voice I say Thank you thank you very much. The title of the book I was thinking of was called THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE. And I don't believe he ever was in a civil war battle but he wrote the most meaningful book of that time about being in battle. 

OOOPSIE


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

SueC said:


> Lucky, your comments made me think of perception. You know, how everyone can see the same event differently? You seem focused on the Bible as an example of history with fictional aspects and I agree with you that a lot of the stories in the Bible could, rightfully, be seen as parables, rather than factual stories. But there will be people, of course, who believe it is all factual, and even the authors of the Bible may have felt that what they were writing was the truth, as inspired by God. But leaving the Bible aside for a moment . . .  okay, this is a little bit of a stray, but today I saw this clip of a shop owner in Florida who stood before the news cameras and said he absolutely does not believe that over 400,000 people have died from the virus, and that the virus is not a real thing. Many, many more people believe it is a real thing, that we are in a pandemic, but apparently this guy does not. And he is not alone. So maybe some things we think of as fiction, is reality to others and visa versa. Just saying . . .



The problem isn't unique to the Bible, or any religious text for that matter. It's the same with any book that claims to be a truthful historic account. I don't actually have a problem with fictionalized content at all. I don't even have a problem with fictionalized advertised as being real -- the old 'Based On A True Story' thing -- so long as the effects are not harmful and there is some method to investigate the claims. I am A-OK with the Bible, the Koran, The Book Of Mormon, Anne Frank's Diary, whatever all being treated as historical documents...just so long as there are other historical documents to compare it to and so long as the same people who advocate for their uses as such do not then dismiss other books according to standards they are not applying to Their Book. 

Again, it's about being consistent. If you're going to treat the Bible as a reliable historical source, that's your prerogative, but then you lose the right to complain about other books 'inventing history'. You cannot have it both ways.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

I find medieval fairytales and stories very interesting. Red Riding Hood (child rape and murder) and Goldy Locks (enslavement and canablism).  As they were parables to try and help children cope with the total tragedy of medieval life. In fact since nobody could read there was this blind faith in god. A sad simplistic faith. And there were these medieval childrens pilgrimages. People in medieval Europe would put their beloved 5 year old on the road to go to Jerusalem and find Christ. 30 thousand children were put on these dreadful childrens pilgrimages. And going to war at 10 to bring back a soldier pension. In europe there are matyrs to the child soldiers. Statues in public squares. Anyway between the total horrors of medieval life with zero education and just sad ideas and total faith in god it was a hard time. I had a friend who once made a sock doll every day and would sew them on quilts representing one soul lost for every child who died on these child pilgrimages where there parents would send them out to die. not one made it to Jerusalem. The died of starvation and murder or became slaves. I like what Margaret Atwood said about Red Riding Hood. The wolf had a dark heart.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 4, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> You absolutely are making an exception, though. This isn't a question of belief in God or adherence to Christianity, which is irrelevant, but of fact vs. non-fact - what is 'history' versus what is 'non-history'.
> 
> Your criticism of 'Spirit Car' was that it '*contains some real history but intentionally confuses it with invented history, so that the reader does not know what is fact and what is speculation*'. < That is a perfect definition for a lot of the Bible. Remember, this isn't a question of belief, but of simply applying the standards you are using toward _other _books _equally_ to this one book that you happen to like and believe in. This isn't an 'opinion' or 'an attack' on Christianity but a reflection on the standards applied to historical/psuedo-historical texts generally and making sure we are not cherry picking based on prestige, power or personal affection.
> 
> ...



It's not about fact vs. speculation. It's about different genres. So, for example: the writer as the Psalms speaks of the "pillars" of the earth -- I take this as metaphor, not because I think he was speculating or inventing history, but because I understand how poetry works. I write poetry. I wrote a poem about my stepmom, who is a real person, but when I said she "sprinkled healing dust," I didn't mean she was throwing actual sand. But no one would argue I was being dishonest. Because _that's the genre. _Invented history is quite a different matter from metaphor. Also, if it helps you understand my position, I do accept as fact what the metaphor represents. For example, Revelation describes, in the end times, a Beast out of the Sea who will deceive the world. Because Revelation exists in the genre of prophecy, it is not necessary to take this as a literal Beast with multiple heads -- however, I do believe that what the metaphor represents (a literal Antichrist) is something that will really and actually happen.



luckyscars said:


> How are you going to on the one hand say that The Gospel Of Thomas is a problem when, by any logic, the formula behind its creation ("...combines what may be real recorded sayings of the historical Jesus with the author's own philosophical/spiritual ideas) is exactly the same as the formula behind the authorship of the Bible?



I do not think the formula behind its creation is the same at all. I have every reason to believe that the Gospels are based on/are eyewitness accounts; they meet essentially all the criteria we measure other historical texts by. The only reason you have presented for not taking them as fact are the miracles, which, as I have explained, I do take as fact. Meanwhile the Gospel of Thomas was written many years after the events, was not actually written by Thomas, and does not match the other Gospels (which, in contrast, corroborate each other, particularly in Jesus' theology/ideas, which in the Gospel of Thomas is quite divergent; Jesus is essentially not the same man that he is in the four canonical Gospels). So all this to say, you may disagree with me or think I have my facts wrong, but I do _not_ think the Bible contains a single drop of invented history. Again, if it is presented as fact, I take it as fact. A man can rise from the dead; an ocean can be parted. When I personally talk to the God of the Universe every day, is that such a stretch? ( :



luckyscars said:


> For example, with Jesus, you may well believe He rose from the dead, walked on water, created food from thin air, etc. As a 'belief' that is fine, by the way. But it is NOT fine as a statement of fact, because there is no evidence for it. Regardless, it is undoubtedly presented (and frequently believed) as something that actually happened, that could happen. It's not some small detail, either. The resurrection forms the cornerstone of the book's messaging.



Aha, yes it is the cornerstone -- exactly. The cornerstone of Christianity is a supernatural event, presented as a historical fact. And I take it as fact. I would disagree that there is no evidence -- look up textual accuracy of the Gospels for a start. This is why I struggle with the word "belief." Would it help you understand my position if I told you I have as much faith in the existence of God as in the ground under my feet? All knowledge, I would argue, is a combination of faith and evidence -- faith in Fact. I know God is real and Jesus rose from the dead, just as I know that the sky is blue and that 2+2=4; though none of those statements can be "proven" (as if any human being could prove anything), I have sufficient warrant to have faith in them, which is I suppose what we mean by "proof." At least, that's the standard of proof applied to mathematics, history, or any other category of human knowledge. I have sufficient warrant to believe that gravity will still be in operation tomorrow, and sure, anybody could pull the but-how-do-you-know-that-you-know, but, really, we say that the Law of Gravity is "proven" because it's reasonable to believe in it. Same with the resurrection. 

Neither do I think these recorded events contradict observed reality. Certainly, they contradict ordinary natural laws, because, you know, that's the thing about miracles, they're _super_natural. But I would not say they contradict observation. I have observed miracles. People I know and trust have observed miracles. A friend of my Dad saw a tumor on somebody's foot shrink from the size of a softball to the size of a quarter, right before his eyes. I've never known anybody to walk on water, but I don't know why a transcendent God couldn't do so. As for making food out of thin air, I know someone who saw the cookies at a conference multiplied (not kidding, but this source is less trusted than the other, since I did not know them as closely. Nevertheless, the point remains that God _could _do it). This is why I have absolutely no trouble intellectually reconciling the "unbelievable" narratives in the Bible, because they happened, and I do not see any reason to discount their happening, when I a) am already working from the premise of a God who can do anything and b) have observed similar things happening today. 

So, maybe this isn't the form of intellectually consistency you were looking for, but there you go -- I require other authors to get their facts straight, and I think the Bible has its facts straight. If you like you may call me a fundamentalist, you can even call me crazy, but, respectfully, I reject the label of hypocrite. 



ANYWAY I think we may be derailing the thread. 




LouiseVoillemin said:


> Atheist ain't got any art.



Hey, that's not a fair statement. What about H. P. Lovecraft?


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

AITBO...Its a yoke. I think Diego Rivera was an athiest. I liked him. Frieda Kahlo a lot more. Anyhoo watch that Steve Martin video. The banjo is the instrument of the outsider. 
As for the topic of writing what we know it works of course but you still have to be a good writer to convey that information. LV


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> It's not about fact vs. speculation. It's about different genres. So, for example: the writer as the Psalms speaks of the "pillars" of the earth -- I take this as metaphor, not because I think he was speculating or inventing history, but because I understand how poetry works. I write poetry. I wrote a poem about my stepmom, who is a real person, but when I said she "sprinkled healing dust," I didn't mean she was throwing actual sand. But no one would argue I was being dishonest. Because _that's the genre. _Invented history is quite a different matter from metaphor. Also, if it helps you understand my position, I do accept as fact what the metaphor represents. For example, Revelation describes, in the end times, a Beast out of the Sea who will deceive the world. Because Revelation exists in the genre of prophecy, it is not necessary to take this as a literal Beast with multiple heads -- however, I do believe that what the metaphor represents (a literal Antichrist) is something that will really and actually happen.



You're fixating on psalms, I am not talking about the psalms. I am talking about the history you claim you believe in. You aren't addressing the simple fact that a huge quantity of the Bible's accounting of supposed real life events is either proven to be incorrect, incredibly likely to be incorrect, or simply pulled from thin air without any corroboration (such as Genesis). And yet you state you believe it _while _also saying you have high standards when it comes to such things in other books. That simply makes no sense.



> When I personally talk to the God of the Universe every day, is that such a stretch? ( :



It's a huge stretch, yes. It's a stretch because it's not evidence. Without evidence, it is not fact and without fact, it is not knowledge.



> Would it help you understand my position if I told you I have as much faith in the existence of God as in the ground under my feet?



It would not make a difference either way, because your faith is not relevant to the subject.

 You may find belief to be an unsatisfactory term for the strength of your conviction (and I suppose to yourself you may use words as you like) but that does not give you the right to mislabel something as fact in the wider discourse. This is much like I cannot reasonably say that because I like Ben & Jerry's ice cream it is a _fact _that Ben & Jerry's ice cream is the best ice cream, and then criticize other forms of ice cream for advertising themselves as the best. 

You were the one who attempted to break subjectivity on a topic that is, at best, entirely subjective. 



> All knowledge, I would argue, is a combination of faith and evidence -- faith in Fact. I know God is real and Jesus rose from the dead, just as I know that the sky is blue and that 2+2=4; though none of those statements can be "proven" (as if any human being could prove anything), I have sufficient warrant to have faith in them, which is I suppose what we mean by "proof." At least, that's the standard of proof applied to mathematics, history, or any other category of human knowledge. I have sufficient warrant to believe that gravity will still be in operation tomorrow, and sure, anybody could pull the but-how-do-you-know-that-you-know, but, really, we say that the Law of Gravity is "proven" because it's reasonable to believe in it. Same with the resurrection.



But it isn't the same. What is the evidence for resurrection? 



> Neither do I think these recorded events contradict observed reality. Certainly, they contradict ordinary natural laws, because, you know, that's the thing about miracles, they're _super_natural. But I would not say they contradict observation. I have observed miracles. People I know and trust have observed miracles. A friend of my Dad saw a tumor on somebody's foot shrink from the size of a softball to the size of a quarter, right before his eyes. I've never known anybody to walk on water, but I don't know why a transcendent God couldn't do so. As for making food out of thin air, I know someone who saw the cookies at a conference multiplied (not kidding, but this source is less trusted than the other, since I did not know them as closely. Nevertheless, the point remains that God _could _do it). This is why I have absolutely no trouble intellectually reconciling the "unbelievable" narratives in the Bible, because they happened, and I do not see any reason to discount their happening, when I a) am already working from the premise of a God who can do anything and b) have observed similar things happening today.



Do you notice how often you are using the word 'I'? That is because you are appealing to your own individual opinions, experiences and beliefs as virtually the entire basis for your claim. Again, that's fine...for establishing belief. But it's not fine for establishing fact and you ought to stop claiming that, especially if you're going to critique other 'fictionalized histories'.



> So, maybe this isn't the form of intellectually consistency you were looking for, but there you go -- I require other authors to get their facts straight, and I think the Bible has its facts straight. If you like you may call me a fundamentalist, you can even call me crazy, but, respectfully, I reject the label of hypocrite.



You can reject it if you want, however we both know you don't actually think the Bible 'has it's facts straight' across the board for the reasons mentioned, which you don't seem to have an answer for. I don't believe you believe in Talking Snakes or 950 year old human men. Therefore "I require authors to be historically accurate but not the authors I happen to agree with" is absolutely hypocritical, and I think you must know that.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 4, 2021)

lucky, I also don't want to sound like a broken record, but here: You clearly see the Bible as fictionalized history and are judging it as such. At a different time, if you're interested, I could go about a proof (or warrant for belief, if you like) of the resurrection. I don't think this is the time or place for that because that isn't what this thread is about. I'm not "addressing" the fact that the Bible is "incredibly likely to be incorrect" because I am trying to explain to you that I do not think the miracle accounts (which are the only evidence you've given against it) are impossible or even improbable. You are operating from the basis that miracles cannot happen, cannot be facts of reality. I am operating from the basis that God exists and operates within the world, both now and in the past.

I use "I," because from what other perspective do I perceive reality; from what other perspective do I perceive facts? _I_ see a blue sky. _I _feel gravity weighing me down. To pull it back to writing what we know, what, really, do I know, and how I do I know it? And what is the distinction between fact (what we know) and belief? I would say that it is not a matter of difference in subject: as in, I don't think some truths are facts and some are beliefs; all truths are facts in the sense that they exist objective of us. I would say it's the object vs. the method. _Fact _is the object (what we know to be true), and _faith _is the method (how we know it). All things that we know, we know by faith, since we live confined in our subjective perception, which is fallible. All objective reality, whether it be the chair you're sitting on or the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, is only accessible by faith. My eyes tell me that my walls are white; I believe my eyes. My ears tell me that there are mice in the walls; I believe my ears (and what's more, act on that belief when I call the maintenance manager). My professor tells me the Ideal Gas Law; I examine my professor's reasoning and believe my professor. And all this from my own fallible senses, and the fallible reasoning of human beings! How much more would I believe the word of my Creator, especially when it holds up against historical tests, matches my natural reason and experience, and, what's more, explains all else I perceive in the world? 

One final note, on falsehood, since we're discussing truth vs untruth: I would disbelieve my professor if they told me that 2+2=5, because that does not hold up against the body of knowledge I already have, nor does it match the operation of my natural reason. Similarly, I disbelieve the Gospel of Thomas, for it doesn't hold up against historical tests, nor against the body of knowledge I have already obtained.



luckyscars said:


> You can reject it if you want, however we both know you don't actually think the Bible 'has it's facts straight' across the board for the reasons mentioned, which you don't seem to have an answer for. I don't believe you believe in Talking Snakes or 950 year old human men. Therefore "I require authors to be historically accurate but not the authors I happen to agree with" is absolutely hypocritical, and I think you must know that.



Hehe, that's kind of the thing. I do actually think the Bible has its facts straight across the board. Segments that are clearly in a poetic genre should be read as poetic genre, but, yeah. So yeah, I believe in 950-year-old human men. How is that any wilder than Jesus' resurrection?


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> lucky, I also don't want to sound like a broken record, but here: You clearly see the Bible as fictionalized history and are judging it as such.At a different time, if you're interested, I could go about a proof (or warrant for belief, if you like) of the resurrection. I don't think this is the time or place for that because that isn't what this thread is about.



The subject is discussing the need for factual basis in texts, right? I don't think this is off-topic. We're talking about probably one of the most controversial books in history and whether it's author(s) were indeed 'writing what they know' and that...seems relevant? If you don't want to discuss it because it makes you uncomfortable, that is fine, but we don't need to manufacture reasons not to talk about it.

Anyway, my point isn't that I see the bible as fictionalized history. I have not, actually, said what I think about the Bible. My point isn't about opinions. Unless one is barking mad -- _everybody_ sees the Bible to varying extents as 'partly fictionalized' or, if preferable, 'based on a true story'. 

That must be true, because we -- as sane adults -- do not actually believe in a six day creation, or talking snakes, or homemade boats stuffed with millions of animals, or 950 year old men, or pillars of salt, or blood rivers, or virgin births, or a zillion other things. There's no question that nobody (or, at least, nobody who is vaguely reasonable) believes that the Bible is not at least quite often fictionalized...or allegorized, if preferable...because otherwise the whole term 'history' is irrelevant. If Noah's Ark can be considered 'history', then so can Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs. Why not?Whether or not people can stomach admitting they don't believe things literally happened is another matter, but I don't think most Christians are that insane/idiotic/ignorant.

So yeah, no, the Bible isn't my point. 

My point is that _you -- _knowing that a lot of this stuff is not literally true -- nevertheless have the gall to claim that fictionalized history is a problem in other books. That makes no sense. It is hypocritical. It is certainly not intellectually honest. Nobody says you can't believe in the Bible as a historically accurate text...but if you do, you lose the right to complain about other texts not being historically accurate.

I don't really know why this is so difficult to grasp, but regardless, that's all I have to say on the subject. I just don't want to hear any more complaints about random Japanese poets not actually being at Hiroshima or whatever. If you can believe that a man walked on water, you have to at least be open minded when it comes to The Gospel Of Thomas, right? How do you know it wasn't God working through the guy? You don't know it. Why can't that be a 'fact' too? Why can't it be 'history'?


----------



## BornForBurning (Feb 4, 2021)

> But...let's say you can somehow prove that the writer was not confused, ignorant or lying. Let's say that actually a man in Biblical times living to 950 years old was possible and/or '950 years' actually did translate into something quite feasible in some ancient calendar that was misinterpreted (and that has not yet been discovered to exist), at least enough to make it credible, if not factually watertight. You then have to do the same thing for ALL the other controversial, scientifically dubious, historically unsubstantiated or generally incredible events or facts (which would be absolutely anything anybody could reasonably read as being fact) that appear throughout the portion of the text that asserts itself to be 'true'. This is simply not possible to do.


I mean, I feel like I've had this argument with you before, but from a human perspective, due to our inherent finity, discerning fact outside of immediate experience is essentially impossible. Most people accept without question the idea that the humans walking and talking around them are self-conscious which, bluntly, is a completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim. I think you've made a completely arbitrary distinction regarding which facts are 'reasonable' and which aren't. The only way to escape this lack of knowledge is Divine Revelation, ala supernatural revelation that supersedes our own finite understanding. When people ask me why I believe the Bible as opposed to the Koran, I can only answer: "God told me it was the Bible, and not the Koran." Of course, there's also the fact that I think the Bible is superior as a narrative, as a piece of theological/philosophical literature, etc. But I always go back to the first point, because I didn't start reading the Bible and _discover _it was true. I was _told _it was true. My mind had to be supernaturally opened before I could understand it. 

I would also say (and I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, but it's a very basic point that people sometimes miss) just because Europeans had never seen giraffes until the eighteenth century didn't mean giraffes didn't exist. In the same sense, just because someone has never seen an angel or a demon or encountered God doesn't mean such things don't exist. You could argue that it isn't _reasonable_ to believe such things until they have been revealed, but that is more of a statement about morality than it is objective fact. From the perspective the atheist/agnostic, I know that statement seems laughable (for the reasons you've previously stated) but as someone who was an atheist because he couldn't see the supernatural, and then became a Christian because he _did _see the supernatural, it's very stark. 

I believe in 950-year-old men, and I _definitely _believe in talking snakes. (If anything in the Bible lines up with my lived experience, it's the snake bit.) Once you realize that human finity precludes any true appreciation of truth (independent of God) you spend a lot less time deconstructing and a lot more time constructing.



> If Noah's Ark can be considered 'history', then so can Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs.


If God told me Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was history, I'd believe him. As such, he hasn't, and I feel comfortable categorizing it as fiction.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 4, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> The subject is discussing the need for factual basis in texts, right? I don't think this is off-topic. We're talking about probably one of the most controversial books in history and whether it's author(s) were indeed 'writing what they know' and that...seems relevant? If you don't want to discuss it because it makes you uncomfortable, that is fine, but we don't need to manufacture reasons not to talk about it.
> 
> That must be true, because we -- as sane adults -- do not actually believe in a six day creation, or talking snakes, or homemade boats stuffed with millions of animals, or 950 year old men, or pillars of salt, or blood rivers, or virgin births, or a zillion other things. There's no question that nobody (or, at least, nobody who is vaguely reasonable) believes that the Bible is not at least quite often fictionalized...or allegorized, if preferable...because otherwise the whole term 'history' is irrelevant. If Noah's Ark can be considered 'history', then so can Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs. Why not? Whether or not people can stomach admitting they don't believe things literally happened is another matter, but I don't think most Christians are that insane/idiotic/ignorant.
> 
> If you can believe that a man walked on water, you have to at least be open minded when it comes to The Gospel Of Thomas, right? How do you know it wasn't God working through the guy? You don't know it. Why can't that be a 'fact' too? Why can't it be 'history'?



Do you think it's idiotic to believe in virgin births? I do believe in one, and most orthodox Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, and Pentecostals do. If you think that a sane adult cannot believe in 950 year old men, or pillars of salt, or blood rivers, or virgin births, then, in your mind, I am not sane. And such beliefs do not require me to be open-minded to all other religious texts. I am not open-minded to the Gospel of Thomas, not because it contains miracles, but because of the distance between it an the real events -- one big reason is that the author isn't Thomas, which inherently means the author is already lying to me by calling themselves Thomas. 

And, hey, if you think it's relevant, ok, we can talk about it. I'm not avoiding so much as trying (and failing, admittedly) to keep the conversation focused. But here is an article, not in-depth, but just kind of to start thinking about it: http://www.veritas.org/evidence-easter-scientists-list/ And: Consider the undisputed historical fact of Jesus' death. Then consider his disciples claiming to have seen him resurrected. Then consider that they were willing to die for this claim: thus, they actually believed it; they were not lying. So, the only other possibility, other than Jesus' resurrection, is that they hallucinated or something. But can so many people share one mass hallucination? The mass hallucination explanation is at least as unlikely as the resurrection explanation, and if you at least accept the possibility of the miraculous, the resurrection claim isn't so unlikely at all.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

I can't even follow this conversation but it seems very intense. I did live on a kibbutz one summer and it does make some of the bible seem more real. And it is interesting that the old testament is found in many major religions and than they get some sort of savoir figure and start the new stuff. What has always attracted me to Christianity for good of for bad is the philosophy of forgiveness. Previous to that it was all Hammurabi type rules which were not fun. 

On the topic of writing what we know. I just read a great article in the Washington Post about the writer of the Queens Gambit. I wish I could remember his name right now but I am middle aged and I forget. What struck me was he wrote a few books fairly well known and then went to graduate school in Creative Writing. Ended up a Creative Writing teacher with a terrible alcohol problem. And couldn't really write for many years as teaching and drinking took all his time. But he could play chess with fellow teachers.

And thus later wrote the Queens Gambit which is now a popular Netflix series. In the article I read that he suddenly got sober divorced his wife married some publishing assistant and moved the New York City and wrote one more book called Mockingbird. And died at 56 of lung cancer. What I liked about his writers life story was that even when he was 
a hopeless drunk he got material for his next book.


----------



## MistWolf (Feb 4, 2021)

Yep. Way off track here. I'm not sure how much of the Bible is literally true and how much is figuratively true. But I do know that someday, I'll be able to ask God face to face and find out. 

To throw fuel on the fire, I don't think miracles are supernatural. God works within the laws of nature to make them happen, including raising the dead, parting seas, blessing Noah with the ability to pack an ark with animals & take care of them, miraculous conception and resurrection. 

But what do I know? I create dystopian futures that have proven uncomfortably prophetic, fantasy worlds with too many fractures and spend too much time on forums.


----------



## SueC (Feb 4, 2021)

LouiseVoillemin said:


> I can't even follow this conversation but it seems very intense. I did live on a kibbutz one summer and it does make some of the bible seem more real. And it is interesting that the old testament is found in many major religions and than they get some sort of savoir figure and start the new stuff. What has always attracted me to Christianity for good of for bad is the philosophy of forgiveness. Previous to that it was all Hammurabi type rules which were not fun.
> 
> On the topic of writing what we know. I just read a great article in the Washington Post about the writer of the Queens Gambit. I wish I could remember his name right now but I am middle aged and I forget. What struck me was he wrote a few books fairly well known and then went to graduate school in Creative Writing. Ended up a Creative Writing teacher with a terrible alcohol problem. And couldn't really write for many years as teaching and drinking took all his time. But he could play chess with fellow teachers.
> 
> ...



I am always amazed at what I know. I mean, when I write a story and try to create an atmosphere within the story of time and place to make it feel genuine, I am in shock at the minutia that fills my brain. I know that men used to walk on the street side of the sidewalk to protect the woman they are with from harm coming from the road. I know what some seldom-used words mean but i don't know why. I know police are not required to read Maranda Rights when they arrest someone, but they are required to read them before a person is charged with a crime. I know the more money you spend on a clothing item, the more likely said item will fit. Cheaper clothes run smaller than an actual size. Tall people can have long legs or be long wasted, or both. Eating too many carrots will give you orange fingernails. You can drink milk two weeks past the sell by date; spandex is not suitable for all body types.

See? Minutia - lots and lots of it.  LOL!


----------



## Taylor (Feb 4, 2021)

SueC said:


> I am always amazed at what I know. I mean, when I write a story and try to create an atmosphere within the story of time and place to make it feel genuine, I am in shock at the minutia that fills my brain. I know that men used to walk on the street side of the sidewalk to protect the woman they are with from harm coming from the road. I know what some seldom-used words mean but i don't know why. I know police are not required to read Maranda Rights when they arrest someone, but they are required to read them before a person is charged with a crime. I know the more money you spend on a clothing item, the more likely said item will fit. Cheaper clothes run smaller than an actual size. Tall people can have long legs or be long wasted, or both. Eating too many carrots will give you orange fingernails. You can drink milk two weeks past the sell by date; spandex is not suitable for all body types.
> 
> See? Minutia - lots and lots of it.  LOL!



I know, isn't it great!  I wish more writers would include minutia in their stories.  Let's face it, we all know a lot of stuff, but it's still great to hear another's perspective, like I'm not sure I agree on the spandex issue...but I'd be open to a new perspective.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

I have a little bit of a science background and there are so many things we don't understand. We likely don't understand all the laws of nature as you called them. Maybe one day we will be able to revive someone from the dead using one cell with science using DNA regeneration. Or maybe if we had a sudden catastrophic event RNA could click on and the next generation are all born lizards. And there is the molecular level that I have no clue about. Like a star trek show where they beam our particles up. Beam me up Scottie. Although I believe human being are extremely flawed and primitive and I have low expectations for their general behavior and overall physical health. Anyway on the topic of not believing in miracles or the supernatural I am not sure. I can't really think of a specific miracle in my life. I might have had a supernatural experience but I am not sure. I have had some really amazing synchronicity type moments that things worked out quite well. I have never been a big bible person. Although I love some of the stories so dramatic. Joseph being sold into slavery over that many colored coat by his brothers no less. And Jonah and the whale. Just cool stories. I an pretty much honestly say the only time I have read the bible was hearing it at church or in a rare page here or there. I did have one friend who has read it like 7 times or something. That makes me laugh I did re-read Jane Eyre over 40 times in high school. I could just zone. I have also re-read other books here and there multiple times. Just never the bible. Funny I was just thinking about Jane Eyre. After she grows up and visits her relatives and the her aunt says she always wished her dead. How strange thought Jane Eyre.

Edited to add: hey I was writing the exact same time as spandex lady and Taylor, JINX


----------



## EternalGreen (Feb 4, 2021)

Is the discussion going on here that the Bible is not an example of "write what you know" because the authors wrote about things that almost certainly didn't happen?

There are numerous example of authors of Hebrew Scriptures writing about events they didn't actually see. But that doesn't mean the authors weren't familiar with the culture in which the stories were set. So even if the stories are (unintentionally) fictional, which I believe they are, they are still usually an example of "write what you know," IMO. I think it would be silly to treat "inspired by God," similarly to "inspired by the Muses." That is to say: The Person's unconscious mind soaks up culture and life experience and uses that bank to create stories with varying degrees of believability.

Say you're an ancient scholar and there's an oral story about animals on a boat or the sky raining fire, etc.  Being immersed in that culture and having life experience at your disposal, you try to write it down and dramatize it. If for example you have a history of working on a king's court and you write a dramatized biography of King David, you're still writing what you know. (I'm not a scholar; I don't even remember if the book(s) about David are, or are purported to be, autobiographies.)

So in conclusion, I think that, if considered fiction, most of the Bible agrees with the "write what you know" creative writing guideline.

(This post isn't trying to be disrespectful I'm just trying to be as objective as I can.)


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

BornForBurning said:


> I would also say (and I hope this doesn't come across as condescending, but it's a very basic point that people sometimes miss) just because Europeans had never seen giraffes until the eighteenth century didn't mean giraffes didn't exist.



(I'm only cutting out a lot of your post because I think a lot of it has been addressed).

Giraffes may have existed, but hypothetical suggestions of their existence prior to their discovery would still not be a _fact. _The definition of fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true." 

If people don't know about something, or cannot prove it, it doesn't make a difference if that thing later turns out to be true by fluke. Giraffes in 17th Century Europe were a non-fact, just as snow was presumably a non-fact to most 17th Century African desert dwellers. The fact giraffes eventually ended up existing doesn't make the person who came up with them by some lucky guess any more _knowledgeable_ than the person who said they saw the Loch Ness Monster only to be disappointed when the sonar found nothing was _knowledgeable_. For every giraffe that turns out to exist there are dozens of things that don't. Occasionally people just get lucky. Lots of people have seen ghosts -- that doesn't make their existence factual either.

Because you're right, it's a moral issue. The immorality of stating a non-fact as a fact lies in imposing one's beliefs on the realm of discourse without respect to peer review and challenge. This is a problem not because the non-fact itself may be inherently harmful or undesirable -- usually it is not -- but because it opens the door allowing unsubstantiated claims into discourse more generally, with a lack of burden of proof. Suddenly, you don't feel the need to _prove _that talking snakes were real. Sure, that's not a problem right now, but it could be, especially if somehow the issue of talking snakes becomes something that requires others to believe in. This is why religious extremism is still such a huge part of human history.

I am more than happy to tolerate the terms 'belief' or 'faith' in such outlandish things, but have no idea why so many people so often feel the need to insist on moving the language towards that which is generally reserved for the scientific and observable? What's wrong with simply 'believing' in talking snakes, why must you claim to 'know for a fact' they exist? Personally, I am always very careful about that. I don't think it's polite to claim to know things without providing the backup.



ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Do you think it's idiotic to believe in virgin births? I do believe in one, and most orthodox Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed, and Pentecostals do. If you think that a sane adult cannot believe in 950 year old men, or pillars of salt, or blood rivers, or virgin births, then, in your mind, I am not sane.



I feel like you're desperately trying to bait me into some kind of insult as it's the second time you have brought it up. In the name of polite discourse, I will just say that no, I don't think you're insane or idiotic. That, of course, does not preclude other reasons you might believe in something illogical.



> And such beliefs do not require me to be open-minded to all other religious texts. I am not open-minded to the Gospel of Thomas, not because it contains miracles, but because of the distance between it an the real events -- one big reason is that the author isn't Thomas, which inherently means the author is already lying to me by calling themselves Thomas.



The 'distance between authorship and events' argument is such a bad faith exercise. The Book Of Exodus, which you earlier said you believe to be "factually accurate history" is believed to be written in 600 BCE at the approximate earliest. Moses, if he existed, was believed to be alive around 1500 BCE, so the best part of 1,000 years before hand. Seems like a pretty big distance, no? As far as the gospels are concerned, we don't even know who wrote those...they are all variously anonymous, yet the idea of the author of 'The Gospel Of Thomas' not actually being named 'Thomas' is some kind of fatal flaw? Come on. If he was named Thomas would you believe it then? I doubt it.



> So, the only other possibility, other than Jesus' resurrection, is that they hallucinated or something. But can so many people share one mass hallucination? The mass hallucination explanation is at least as unlikely as the resurrection explanation, and if you at least accept the possibility of the miraculous, the resurrection claim isn't so unlikely at all.



Mass hallucination is actually quite common and established. The Salem Witch Trials is one well-documented example. Others concern things like UFO sightings, sightings of the Virgin Mary, etc. Then you have the Mandela effect of false memory. There have been plenty of studies on it and evidence collected, definitely a lot more than for resurrections.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 4, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> I feel like you're desperately trying to bait me into some kind of insult as it's the second time you have brought it up. In the name of polite discourse, I will just say that no, I don't think you're insane or idiotic. That, of course, does not preclude other reasons you might believe in something illogical.



I'm sorry, that's not what I'm trying to do at all. It's just that you'd made a blanket statement implying that reasonable Christians do not believe in such things, but the fact is is that most Christians do believe in such things. I don't even necessarily view an insanity charge as an insult, though perhaps it is irrelevant to the discussion. And I apologize.

ETA: did you read the article I sent you? Just curious.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 4, 2021)

Luckyscars, I am from Wisconsin and I lived through a mass hallucination and was around brainwashed people. I just wanted to point out it was not just the Salem witch trials. I watched it happen living in Wisconsin these last years. I watched people become totally brainwashed. I wondered sometimes if I was going crazy because I thought so totally differently. I would refuse to even listen to talk radio there it made me so angry and upset or most news. I would only listen to NPR and read the newspapers online, most things on airwaves I found it so disturbing. I am now in France and this is my 3rd time living here and there should be a special mental hospital for people Americans who move to France 3 times. There is actually a word for it it is called re-patriotization. Oh there are pluses and minuses to living in the USA or France. To be honest i don't really have a preference anymore. I am middle aged and done wanting to be someplace else. Where ever I am is fine now. Anyway I wanted to mention I totally believe in mass brainwashing and hallucination. i just came from wisconsin. i dont mention where my joke is if you took the devinci man drawing and over laid it on wisconsin i come from the town
where the leonardo divinci man goes wee week.

For whatever reason this mass agreement thing reminds me of the Roman Gladiators. I fenced for about 2 years in college for fun. And wish I had kept it up its a great sport.
I like it because you must use your brain to point before your hand goes there it is very active for my brain. in the fencing class we learned a little history. apparently the times of the coloseum were for about 300 year and over 300,000 people were murdered in the coluseum for sport. mostly prisoners of foriegn wars brought to Rome for the reason of the entertainment of their deaths in the coloseum. In fact the art of fencing came out of the roman coloseum and all royal courts took fencing very seriously and there are some
amazing historical fencing duels. very sad and manipulative deaths. anyway fencing is till very popular in europe. most towns have a club and it is a sport that can be done until
very old age. usually most olympic men winners are from Europe because of the culture of fencing here. i think the only time a european didnt win the olympics in fencing was
during wwii because all the young men were dead. anyway i suppose I am writing about something I know but it was too emphasize how large groups can be brainwashed
or hold the same belief system. the coluseum was a highly stylized system of death essentially. and the crowds loved it.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> but the fact is is that most Christians do believe in such things.



Do they? Do you have any kind of source on that? My brother in law, an Episcopalian zoologist, will be quite startled to learn that he is in the minority for not believing as a literal truth that two of every animal on earth fit into a 950 year old man's homemade boat.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 4, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> Do they? Do you have any kind of source on that? My brother in law, an Episcopalian zoologist, will be quite startled to learn that he is in the minority for not believing as a literal truth that two of every animal on earth fit into a 950 year old man's homemade boat.



I was  thinking more particularly of the virgin birth than of the flood, since the virgin birth is encoded in the creeds of most major denominations, including the Episcopalian church, which holds to the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, as far as I am aware. Additionally, if you consider Christianity historically and internationally, over all the years of Christian belief and across all national and ethnic lines, not limited to American Christians in the 21st century, I think it would be accurate to say most Christians take Biblical canon as fact.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> ETA: did you read the article I sent you? Just curious.



I didn't read the article because I googled Veritas.org and read about them instead. As a rule I don't read articles on 'Why Climate Change Is A Lie" written by Exxon Mobile, "Why Johnny Depp Sucks" by Amber Heard, or "Why A Pound Of Bacon A Day Is Good For Dogs" written by Mr. Woof-A-Lot. By the same token, reading 'proof' for resurrection provided by a Christian group is not something I am willing to invest five minutes in. Send me something from the New Scientist, The Washington Post, any non-sectarian accredited university/academic institution, or just a clip from Sesame Street and I'll be happy to look.


----------



## BornForBurning (Feb 4, 2021)

> I am more than happy to tolerate the terms 'belief' or 'faith' in such outlandish things, but have no idea why so many people so often feel the need to insist on moving the language towards that which is generally reserved for the scientific and observable? What's wrong with simply 'believing' in talking snakes, why must you claim to 'know for a fact' they exist? Personally, I am always very careful about that. I don't think it's polite to claim to know things without providing the backup.


I agree. I really agree. God and talking snakes are part of reality, and this is our disconnect. 


> The 'distance between authorship and events' argument is such a bad faith exercise. The Book Of Exodus, which you earlier said you believe to be "factually accurate history" is believed to be written in 600 BCE at the approximate earliest


Just because a manuscript has contemporary Assyrian idioms doesn't mean it isn't based on earlier, far older manuscripts. In fact, it's quite likely that the Jewish rabbis _did _engage in regular editing/transliteration of the text. That doesn't mean it isn't history, that doesn't mean it isn't inspired. This is the problem with all arguments against Biblical legitimacy. They run flat-up against the wall known as _humans are limited_. This is my point about the giraffe. Not that the giraffe didn't exist to the people who didn't know about it; actually, my point is the precise opposite. It is that the giraffe _did _exist, regardless of what anyone thought about it. The limits of 'rational' understanding, at the time, excluded giraffes. For the sake of the argument, the limits of 'rational' understanding, in our time, might exclude the historicity of the book of Joshua. _That doesn't mean it isn't historical_. Human knowledge is in constant FLUX. You cannot make ANY ultimate, true or false statements based on human knowledge. You just can't. That's observationally unreasonable. 


> Suddenly, you don't feel the need to _prove that talking snakes were real._


Do you feel the need to prove yourself as real? Do you feel the need to prove myself as real, or your wife as real? Probably not, because you have presupposed our own existence. You have, by your own definition, imposed your own unsubstantiated claims upon the discourse. If that seems unreasonable, I honestly don't know what to say to you, because your claims seem insanely unreasonable to me. I agree that the chaos of 'anyone can claim anything' is chaos, however, if you aren't going to believe in God, that's the chaos you resign yourself to. 

Anyways, how the heck would I prove God to you? He is an INFINITE BEING. I can't catch Him in my hand. By definition, he is incomprehensible. His methods are a ghastly murk. And to the good old hallucination argument, just because the supernatural can be plausibly explained by the natural (independent of specific facts of the case) hardly means the supernatural explanation is bunk; regardless, if something is _perceived _as distinct from myself (even if spectral), I tend to think it _is _distinct from myself.

Peace. I actually like you a lot. You are the good kind of atheist (agnostic?), like my grandfather was.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 4, 2021)

Historically if you didn't follow the dictated beliefs horrible things happened to you, also without much of what we regard as basic knowledge it does not seem ridiculous to believe in things like a virgin birth, raising the dead by touching them or changing water into wine. That people have learned a lot more about how the world works and received an education perhaps accounts for the fact that none of my friends would claim to believe any of these things, that they might have had their entrails cut out and cast into a fire in front of them if they denied it might account for the fact that almost everyone avowed belief in these ridiculous statements.

My people were Quakers, Quaker meeting is almost the only Christian church to see an increase in attendance in this country, but Quakers I know mostly don't believe in the Bible as literal truth, you get the occasional old lady, but most will say things like "Well, I believe there was someone very remarkable living in Palestine about 2,000 years ago, but 'The Son of God', not literally."

As for writing what you know, why? Must the ignorant and those who fantasise give up writing? How would we know who they were if they were not allowed to expose themselves?


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 4, 2021)

BornForBurning said:


> Just because a manuscript has contemporary Assyrian idioms doesn't mean it isn't based on earlier, far older manuscripts. In fact, it's quite likely that the Jewish rabbis _did _engage in regular editing/transliteration of the text. That doesn't mean it isn't history, that doesn't mean it isn't inspired. This is the problem with all arguments against Biblical legitimacy. They run flat-up against the wall known as _humans are limited_. This is my point about the giraffe. Not that the giraffe didn't exist to the people who didn't know about it; actually, my point is the precise opposite. It is that the giraffe _did _exist, regardless of what anyone thought about it. The limits of 'rational' understanding, at the time, excluded giraffes. For the sake of the argument, the limits of 'rational' understanding, in our time, might exclude the historicity of the book of Joshua. _That doesn't mean it isn't historical_. Human knowledge is in constant FLUX. You cannot make ANY ultimate, true or false statements based on human knowledge. You just can't. That's observationally unreasonable.



Sure, but this is ultimately an argument from ignorance fallacy: _You don't know everything, or arguably anything for sure, therefore the Bible can be called historical fact. _Again, by that same logic, Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs can be called historical fact and suddenly the whole notion of 'fact' and 'history' means nothing because there is no standard by which anything must be proven. 

Even then, I accept 'human knowledge is limited' as a line of logic for why the things in the Bible (or the Brother's Grimm) _might _be true and therefore _can be _believed. What I don't accept is that it's a line of logic for why these things can ever be called facts, regardless of whether they are believed. It's simply not accurate to call something that has no evidence for it, let alone something where there is actually evidence against it, a 'fact'.

 And, most obnoxiously, most believers aren't even consistent with their 'you can't prove it's wrong therefore it could be true'. I know a great many Christian adults, of which exactly 0% believe in Santa Claus and will, in fact, snort at the very idea of the two mythologies being comparable. Well, why aren't they comparable? Why is Santa Claus not something to be called a 'fact' (lest you be treated as mad) but Jesus & the Bible is?



> Do you feel the need to prove yourself as real? Do you feel the need to prove myself as real, or your wife as real? Probably not, because you have presupposed our own existence. You have, by your own definition, imposed your own unsubstantiated claims upon the discourse. If that seems unreasonable, I honestly don't know what to say to you, because your claims seem insanely unreasonable to me. I agree that the chaos of 'anyone can claim anything' is chaos, however, if you aren't going to believe in God, that's the chaos you resign yourself to.



I don't need to prove myself as real because my reality is evident to myself. It is also, more importantly, evident to you and I know that because you are addressing me as though I exist. The question '_do you need to prove yourself as real_?' is therefore inherently contradictory -- who is 'you' if 'you' might not exist? It's a fairly silly question, basically. 



> Anyways, how the heck would I prove God to you? He is an INFINITE BEING. I can't catch Him in my hand. By definition, he is incomprehensible. His methods are a ghastly murk. And to the good old hallucination argument, just because the supernatural can be plausibly explained by the natural (independent of specific facts of the case) hardly means the supernatural explanation is bunk; regardless, if something is _perceived _as distinct from myself (even if spectral), I tend to think it _is _distinct from myself.



Correct, you cannot prove him to me, and therefore we find ourselves back where we started....which is that one must not call that which they cannot even begin to prove a 'fact'. They don't have to call it a falsehood either, simply to abstain from deciding is sufficient.
_
I believe in aliens. 
But I cannot prove it/they exist. 
Therefore, aliens are not factual and I would never dream of saying they are. 
On the other hand, my belief in aliens together with my understanding of the possibility they might exist means I do not want to say their existence is untrue. 
It is neither true or untrue.
But either way it is not a fact._


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 4, 2021)

"I don't have to prove myself as real because my reality is evident to myself." lucky, although this may not be relevant, I want you to know how positively refreshing that position is. You don't know how many people at my university, if presented with such a quandary, would not even bother over whether they were real or not, and if they did, would be immediately sucked into serious doubt over it. Faith in your own existence is the cornerstone of any sustainable philosophy, and it is so, so refreshing to hear. But this, as BFB noted, is the disconnect. God is evident, just as you are evident, though unproven. How shall I begin to prove him, when his existence is the axiom on which my faith in even my own existence relies? I only believe in science because I believe in God. I only believe in the results of any human pursuit of knowledge because I believe that God has given us reason to exercise on the natural order. Perhaps I have confused you with the word "fact." God is a fact in that he is an objective reality independent of what you or I think of him. If I ceased to believe in him, he would continue to exist. But he is not a fact that can be measured, held in the hand. How could he when all facts proceed from him?


----------



## Omits (Feb 5, 2021)

I read a lot of 'hard' Sci-Fi and many authors now are churning out books very fast. This makes some of them rather boring with lots of non related dialogue and full of questionable actions and facts. OK in small doses but tedious otherwise and I often do not get to the end of the book. I think it comes from modern films where it's more soap than theme.


----------



## clark (Feb 5, 2021)

Wow! I left this thread at about post #70 or thereabouts, but, like the Energizer bunny, it just won't quit! I needn't cite specific members of this Forum or specific contributors to this thread to suggest this summation of the Fact/Non-Fact Argument:
*
It doesn't matter. Belief is All.

*David Hume essentially sounded the death-knell of Empiricism as a philosophical 'school' when he insisted that since he could awake from deep dreams and _not know _for a few moments, half a minute, perhaps even a few minutes, whether he was asleep or awake, then the only VERIFIABLE TRUTH he could affirm to Know was. . .the perception that he was having a perception. I do not wish to moosh this thread into the squishy swamps of epistemological or metaphysical solipsism, because I'm pretty confident that will end up with some of us on one side of a line in the sand, and some of us on the other. Maybe glaring at each other. Maybe sticking our tongues out at each other?

But that line in the sand ain't going anywhere.

If a tree falls (yawn . . .) in the forest 100 miles from a human ear, does it make a noise? I cannot possibly answer that question, even though I've experienced 10,000 trees falling in forests, and every one of them made a helluva noise. I cannot KNOW that THAT distant tree made a noise.

If a tree falls (you already yawned) in the forest 100 miles from a human ear, does it make a noise? Well of course it does, you bloody moron. Based on the loud noises I've heard from  10,000 trees falling in forests, I absolutely believe THAT distant tree made a noise.

This is not even an Argument, which implies at least the possibility of change or movement, of some kind of adjustment in Basic Stance, between two sides of a proposition. Some of you reading my bit here have been kicking the Proof, Non-Proof 'discussion' around for four or five decades. Have you seen an undisputed goal scored? Ever? If you have . . .please share. I've been at it for six decades; score is still 0 -- 0 in the minds of all PLAYERS.

*It doesn't matter. Belief is ALL. 

*We're writers. Creative writers. We create worlds and within those worlds we weld into words our vision of landscape, environment, flora, fauna, machines and sailing ships, rockets and tunneling devices and gods, chariots, flying horses and talking snakes and then we people all this stuff that never was with heroes and villains, gravediggers and angels and vamps and pimps, kings, queens, pygmies and murderers . . . and in the end, only one BASE reality matters:  Surely all the subtleties, nuances. twists and turns, delicate suggestions . . .everything! . . .depends on that basic substructure: IS THIS A BELIEVABLE CONTEXT AND ARE THESE CHARACTERS BELIEVABLE IN THIS CONTEXT?

Hell, maybe we can simplify the writer's 'reality' even more. I believe it was Coleridge who coined the fascinating critical phrase to describe the mental/psychological/space/time perceptive state of mind of an audience during a Shakespearean production: sitting in your theatre seat (or reading in your chair), the created world of the drama had to be so enthralling and Now that you would enter a "*willing suspension of disbelief*" during the period of time you were "in" the writer's world. Is not that what we strive for as writers? Is not that result our aim? I would suggest that whether we write from what we 'know' intimately, or from what we project or imagine--however wildly--the imaginative coherence of the creation will be the measure. Now, how you can PREDICT audience response and/or 'sense' of imaginative coherence . . . ​I think I hear someone calling me from another room . . . .


----------



## indianroads (Feb 5, 2021)

The link between our mind and quantum physics.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 5, 2021)

I'm far too ignorant to stick to what I know.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 5, 2021)

clark said:


> If a tree falls (yawn . . .) in the forest 100 miles from a human ear, does it make a noise? I cannot possibly answer that question, even though I've experienced 10,000 trees falling in forests, and every one of them made a helluva noise. I cannot KNOW that THAT distant tree made a noise.
> 
> If a tree falls (you already yawned) in the forest 100 miles from a human ear, does it make a noise? Well of course it does, you bloody moron. Based on the loud noises I've heard from  10,000 trees falling in forests, I absolutely believe THAT distant tree made a noise.



The obvious answer is that it isn't a perfect binary. There are degrees of certainty, with everything and anything. What matters is we agree on the definitions of what burden of proof constitutes 'fact'.

See, the problem isn't that people disagree on what the facts are. It doesn't matter if people disagree on whether a fallen tree makes a noise. I know what I _believe _about that and I think my reasoning is fairly sound, but as I have said over and over it doesn't matter what people's _beliefs_ are, on trees or god or whether grape nuts are an acceptable breakfast cereal (spoiler: they aren't). Your belief is simply the product of the process, it is what it is. The process is the only part we can ultimately control as a species. In that process, what matters is whether we (1) Accept that 'facts' need 'proof' and (2) Have some common agreement on what sort of 'proof' is in fact 'proof', as opposed to manipulation, propaganda or other bullshit. 

Because if we agree on those two things -- that facts need proof and proof must be rational -- then most likely we will never have too many disagreements on  whether unheard falling trees make noise is or is not a fact. We certainly won't disagree much on stuff like resurrections. Because if we ALL agree that 'absolute certainty' should be predicated on proof and agree that certain sources are not good sources, then it's hard to imagine there being a lot of really irreconcilable disagreements. At the very least, what disagreements there are should be, for the most part, quite reasonable.

We can then expend our time and resources debating things that are truly challenging and important, not absurd things like whether a 950 year old man could _literally _build a boat large enough to accommodate _two specimens of_ _every fucking animal on earth..._or whether some guy's wife being turned into a pile of salt _literally _happened. I mean, I'm very sorry, but these just aren't actual grownup conversations worth having. But even if you believe they ARE grownup conversations worth having they certainly are not 'facts' and anybody who claims they are abuses the term.


----------



## Llyralen (Feb 5, 2021)

Olly Buckle said:


> I'm far too ignorant to stick to what I know.



I just started a thread about my story where the MC is a girl who is dying, she got murdered.  I was trying to think how that story has anything to do with what I know.   I’m writing it anyway!


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 5, 2021)

*Cutting out the patronizing stuff about how refreshing my position is*



ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> But this, as BFB noted, is the disconnect. God is evident, just as you are evident, though unproven.



God is not evident just as I am evident. There is no evidence for God that cannot be explained by fraud, madness, honest error or a hundred other reasons. Not a single piece of evidence nearly as good as the evidence that luckyscars wrote this post. There is also a great deal of motive to make Him up, where there is no motive to make me up. But, of course, you don't need to believe in me either. You just need to accept the evidence that somebody is writing this, that it is not coming out of thin air, that it is written by a human. What has God ever written that a human could not write? Nothing.



> How shall I begin to prove him, when his existence is the axiom on which my faith in even my own existence relies?



Why is your faith in your existence relevant to anything? Lots of people have faith in their existence without God. It sounds like a 'you' problem, basically.



> I only believe in science because I believe in God. I only believe in the results of any human pursuit of knowledge because I believe that God has given us reason to exercise on the natural order.



Again, we aren't talking about beliefs. For the zillionth time, beliefs don't equal facts. Beliefs have no reliable reflection on facts. If beliefs equaled facts, the jails would be empty, from all the people who believed strongly enough they were either not there physically, or did not deserve to be so. That you are so convinced that your 'beliefs' belong in a conversation about 'facts' is very frustrating. I have not once detailed my beliefs and yet you continue to bore me with yours as though they are important or valuable. Why?



> Perhaps I have confused you with the word "fact." God is a fact in that he is an objective reality independent of what you or I think of him. If I ceased to believe in him, he would continue to exist. But he is not a fact that can be measured, held in the hand. How could he when all facts proceed from him?



You have not confused me, you simply misuse the term. Facts are 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'. God is not 'known' in any meaningful sense because lots of people (and declining each year) don't think He exists and those that do have a difficult time convincing them. Secondly, even the most arrogant believer does not generally claim to know God in any real sense. Nobody can say how God works, what God is made of, etc. They cannot provide proof for him, obviously, not besides the stuff you're spouting (which is not proof that works in any other context). They cannot draw him or describe him or articulate a beginning, end or purpose for him. There is no chemical formula for God, not even a computer readout, no frequency. Not only is there no design for God but there patently _cannot_ be a design for God because the components of such a design would immediately collapse under the weight of subjective disagreements surrounding what must be perfection: God cannot have a penis without also having scrotal warts, a face without appearing unattractive, a voice without mumbling. The very best answer we get is some sort of abstract: _God exists beyond fact_ or something...which -- shocker -- is not itself a fact. Enough for a belief? Of course. A theory? Perhaps. A fact? No. It's not a fact. It's not science. It's not history. It's not truth. It's something _you_ believe in, that the rest of us are willing to tolerate you believing in, just as you tolerate our disbelief, and that should be sufficient. You don't get to use the language of medicine, history, science or math and thereby coopt language to push the agenda.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Feb 5, 2021)

I took my upbringing to be a set of beliefs taught by religious parents that I carried with me like most other families. Not every family is catholic. Even if you decide not to believe in God the beliefs are subject to rejection or acceptance. What I like of religion is that it preaches moral behavior which we can accept or reject by making up our minds ( the church belief system is strict so my point of view is of a Catholic that believes mostly in morality as a thought process). Sure it is not everything the church has said is right. In fact morality is something that is constantly changing. Stories teach morals and values. They use this to teach little children the significance of morality without being morally didactic. There was a great moral psychologist called Lawrence Kohlberg. He knew the importance of teaching morality even though now in schools I believe they observe people's values emerge. That is his approach in a way since it is based on piaget 's childhood stages. How you are educated morally at least for me is needed. Schools take part in influencing children. Regardless if someone does not believe in God morality has been studied and it remains relevant even today. It is just my opinion of course. Not looking to debate. But I wanted to chime in since Arrow might be offended luckyscars. Religion is a touchy subject. If you inherit the beliefs and are making some one doubt what they believe. That I am not a fan off. I once met this philosopher who was number one in his class in philosophy. I disliked his personality. Moderation on that forum was poor. But anyways where I am from the church helps the poor. There are strong feelings of community. You can make friends in church. You can get help. One of my cousins was helped by the church by the priest to get a job in New york. If you respect someone's identity if they identify with the church you also respect part of what the community taught them. Then there is culture which would also be identity. Respecting culture is important to get along with the next person in that cultural group. Let arrow believe what she wants. I have run into bad people's company. Judging right or wrong or morality is a worthy way of thinking about the world and it's problems and it's discontents. I would say morality is the source of many problems. That would make for a great thematic statement for a story.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 5, 2021)

For whatever reason the time of the Roman Gladiators reminds me of how we all agree on a construct of reality. I wrote somewhere here in a previous post, that the colosseum era lasted about 300 years and over 300,000 people died for entertainment sake. And one day I will be able to spell colosseum without having to google it. Anyway, they all agreed on that 300 year insanity. I lived in basically 3 places in my life Wisconsin, New Mexico and France. I have traveled more than the average person mostly because I didn't have a child until I was 42 and had a lot of freedom and a good job with money that didn't need to go to lessons and cool kid clothes. And I have had the chance to be in totally different cultures. One was a wedding in Morocco for a week long wedding. I find it astounding how people all agree on a society construct. It is awe inspiring and a sort of time travel and space travel. Here are millions of people that speak a different language and have different gods and think differently about marriage and sex and work and play and how to cook food and how to die. It is really incredible. I just called my bank in Wisconsin and it is 40 dollars overdrawn. I have a 500 dollar overdraft protection. And the teller told me oh don't worry just drop by and put some money in your account. I only mention it as she is in another mental construct than me now. As I am in France that is not likely. But it was nice to have someone share that mental construct in another world. Far far away. Thinking I was able to drive over and put 40 dollars in my account. Anyway I had already sent a check for 200 euro on January 20th and it always takes 10 business days to post. And I used that account to buy my kid an Algebra I book. Anyway, what I am trying to say is that society has a sort of mental agreement and I find it very interesting how you can go from one agreement zone to another. 

Here are millions of people that speak a different language and have different gods and think differently about marriage and sex and work and play and how to cook food and how to die. It is really incredible.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Feb 6, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> *Cutting out the patronizing stuff about how refreshing my position is*



I'm really really really sorry. I didn't mean to be patronizing. This is what I hate about communicating over block text only -- though of course there are advantages, the emotional side can be lost or misconstrued. You couldn't see how my face genuinely lit up when I read those words about having faith in your own existence. Like, it makes me so happy. I'm sorry I came off that way. It makes me happy because like I said, I don't see it a lot, but also because I've been thinking about faith, and consciousness, and what it means to be conscious of yourself. What it means to be a being distinct from other beings, conscious of yourself as a being. Does that make sense? I really respect you. That's what I'm trying to say. If you ever feel there's some kind of weird subtext in what I'm saying, there probably isn't. Take it at face value if you can because that's how I mean it.

ETA: Also, I'm not trying to borrow language from other "ways of knowing," like science or history. It's more that to engage in science or history, there has to be some philosophical underpinning for doing so in the first place. To perform science, for example, you have to trust that what you see with your eyes is really happening. There must be some axiom for why you can say, "what I perceive with the process of science is real," or on a higher level, "the universe is inherently rational -- what I can test and affirm by science this moment will still be true the next." I am wondering for lucky in particular: are you perhaps coming from a pragmatist position? That perception can be trusted because it must be trusted to engage in the world? That's the impression I'm getting but I may be wrong.


----------



## Kensa (Feb 6, 2021)

Passionate thread ! ;-)

Write what you know ? Its depends on your goal as a writer, IMO.

My brother is a cook. One day, I went in a restaurant with him. The cook was working at a counter in full view and my brother looked at him the whole time, commenting on how he was doing his stuff (not the meal I had expected, but very interesting).
I can write a story about a cook, but I'll never make "being a cook" the core part of a story, I think it would be impossible for me to write it "true".
I worked as a postman for years, and each time I read an article in the newspaper about postmen, something is off. Nothing really wrong, but the way it's written, it doesn't feel right either. No harm done, but...

As a reader, I like to learn new ways of thinking, new ways of life, and I appreciate when the writer seems to know his subject.
As a writer, I like to put my MCs (and myself) in new situations, like an actor would do (being _that_ character when _that_ thing happens). But on the practical level (location, character's work/hobby, etc), I would rather keep to what I know. When I don't know something, I do a lot of research until I feel confident enough to write about it (or I give up the idea).
I never created a whole world (fantasy or SF), but I think I'll give a try, one day...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 6, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> There are degrees of certainty, with everything and anything. What matters is we agree on the definitions of what burden of proof constitutes 'fact'.
> .


In England the law says to the jury they should find someone guilty if it is "Beyond reasonable doubt." If one believes that their Holy Book, be it the Bible, Quoran, whatever, is the word of God then it is surely beyond all doubt, God doesn't reason with anyone.

If, on the other hand, one believes that there is no God, at least not in that sense, but that it is all an invention of those requiring a higher authority to support their assertions, it is all pretty unreasonable and doubtful.

This is a 'N'ere the twain shall meet' situation, and unless one or the other changes their belief you can go on arguing forever. The inquisition saw this and didn't try to convert the heretics, just got rid of them. Personally I feel the world is big enough for all of us and it saves a lot of time, effort and unpleasantness to simply agree to disagree. But if you want to expend your energy hammering away that's up to you.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 7, 2021)

Olly Buckle said:


> In England the law says to the jury they should find someone guilty if it is "Beyond reasonable doubt." If one believes that their Holy Book, be it the Bible, Quoran, whatever, is the word of God then it is surely beyond all doubt, God doesn't reason with anyone.
> 
> If, on the other hand, one believes that there is no God, at least not in that sense, but that it is all an invention of those requiring a higher authority to support their assertions, it is all pretty unreasonable and doubtful.
> 
> This is a 'N'ere the twain shall meet' situation, and unless one or the other changes their belief you can go on arguing forever. The inquisition saw this and didn't try to convert the heretics, just got rid of them. Personally I feel the world is big enough for all of us and it saves a lot of time, effort and unpleasantness to simply agree to disagree. But if you want to expend your energy hammering away that's up to you.



The general discussion about the bible and now the justice system which does have some historical relevance to the development of Judeo-Christian ethos in our justice systems. Got me thinking of one of my favorite mind sets. That the foundation of democracy are FACTS furthered by debate ie argument or discussion. And you couldn't really say that about the bible is based on facts. Well, I mean, theoretically that is how democracy works and progress is made are theoretically based in facts. It doesn't always happen and when a delusional narcissist who lies and crazy makes gets a Twitter feed for 6 years bad things can happen and the lies take over. Anyway no names mentioned. Just an example of how mass mind sets can be achieved.

Another thought about the bible. Many years ago I read I think in a New Yorker magazine and article about how the King James bible was established. With all it's hauntingly beautiful language and searing images. If I remember correctly, it was a committee of religious leaders all who had great educations as was rare in that time who sat around for years and wrote that bible. All paid for by religious groups to support these guys why they did this. Like a ten year committee fully paid for job type thing. So the King James bible although I have never read the bible much I had a friend who did. And he told me about it and his opinions about it. There is actually a program. I think it is called The great books program, at St. Johns College in Santa Fe. Where they have a great books program that is quite famous and on of the books is the King James bible.

Anyway my point is that the St. James bible was no mishmashed accident. It was a long expensive project all paid for the the church. Whatever the other bibles are or do. I have no idea. But there has to be some understanding of the ways these books were made. On the bible topic. Another tangent. I once saw a Guttenberg  bible. At a museum in Pasadena California. A wonderful museum. And these bibles were some of the first printed with the first printing press in the 1400's. I think. I am no bible expert. Anyway, The King James which came much later had very different underpinnings. It was meant to be written as beautifully as possible.

My point is that the foundation of democracy are FACTS furthered by argument. Although the Judeo-Christian ideas have some influence in democratic justice systems theoretically it should be based on FACTS.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 7, 2021)

That Bible was part of a long debate about whether the common people should be allowed access to things. Before that they were read the Bible in Latin, and then the priest gave them his interpretation of what it meant. They were only starting to form their own impressions of what it meant years later and the authorities were still trying to control that. Lay preachers like Bunyan were still being imprisoned for practicing something that was not their legal profession nearly a hundred years later, and Charles was objecting to legal documents being published in English because common people had no business understanding the affairs of Kings.


----------



## BabesJJ (Feb 7, 2021)

Olly Buckle said:


> That Bible was part of a long debate about whether the common people should be allowed access to things. Before that they were read the Bible in Latin, and then the priest gave them his interpretation of what it meant. They were only starting to form their own impressions of what it meant years later and the authorities were still trying to control that. Lay preachers like Bunyan were still being imprisoned for practicing something that was not their legal profession nearly a hundred years later, and Charles was objecting to legal documents being published in English because common people had no business understanding the affairs of Kings.




This conversations is pretty far from what I know and way out of my league and interest to be honest. I did have some interest in art sacred and art profane. As much of protestant art is really for marriage contracts and you are not allowed to show Christ etc. I don't know every detail. And profane Art of the catholic countries show mary and the death of Christ. Which are really amazing. My favorite painting at the Louvre that I went and saw over 10 times on every free museum Sunday was the Virgin in the Rock or on the rock or on the rocks ha, its just mind blowing. Give me art profane anyday. And after living in Protestant America which allegedly is supposed to be multi religions. The protestant ethic is in our films and art and bars and love and work of course and at death. And it is so different living in a Catholic country. With its more realistic grasp on the world. Trying to use beauty to mitigate the rough edges of life. i personally call it good ole French realism. Anyway, having lived in France before for 10 years and returning, I really see the differences between a protestant culture and a catholic culture. Or the issue of art sacred and art profane. I see a clear difference being out of a protestant based culture like the USA. And I miss it greatly and love the USA. And am fine living in France. I am here because of my husband is French not necessarily because it is my first choice.

edited to add I went and found the article I had read: 

"A Great Music" 2003 issue New Yorker
*A Great Music*
_Committees and creativity in the making of the King James Bible._
By James Wood


----------



## druid12000 (Feb 8, 2021)

When I hear the expression, 'write what you know', it brings to mind a skit performed by Kevin McDonald on 'The Kids in the Hall'. He stands at a podium to read from the follow-up to his best selling debut. It's full of: 'umm, doo de doo, tap, tap, tap...write what you know, write what you know...' :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Feb 9, 2021)

The phrase "Write what you know" is much more broad than job experience.
For me, it refers to triumphs and tribulations I may have experienced in life.
Sure, technical knowledge is prime, but when you are creating characters they are all about the sum of their life experiences.

The adage "Write what you know" is kinda of like saying "Don't sing the blues unless you got the blues to sing."
Write from the things that you have felt.


----------



## luckyscars (Feb 11, 2021)

Olly Buckle said:


> In England the law says to the jury they should find someone guilty if it is "Beyond reasonable doubt." If one believes that their Holy Book, be it the Bible, Quoran, whatever, is the word of God then it is surely beyond all doubt, God doesn't reason with anyone.
> 
> If, on the other hand, one believes that there is no God, at least not in that sense, but that it is all an invention of those requiring a higher authority to support their assertions, it is all pretty unreasonable and doubtful.
> 
> This is a 'N'ere the twain shall meet' situation, and unless one or the other changes their belief you can go on arguing forever. The inquisition saw this and didn't try to convert the heretics, just got rid of them. Personally I feel the world is big enough for all of us and it saves a lot of time, effort and unpleasantness to simply agree to disagree. But if you want to expend your energy hammering away that's up to you.



While I agree that there is never going to be harmonious agreement, I disagree that it's a binary in which faith/lack of faith forces a 'believe all' vs. 'believe none' dichotomy in the manner you describe.

It's demonstrably the case that there is nuance and room for both agreements and disagreements between reasonable Christians and reasonable atheists and that these agreements and disagreements not only need not be futile but may just save the world from further descent into the quagmire of conspiracy, tribalism, extremism and other nonsense.

 I put it to you that the current Archbishop of Canterbury has philosophically more in common with Richard Dawkins than he does Jerry Falwell...and that's despite the fact the Archbishop and Falwell both certainly believe in the 'Holy Book'. In other words, there are some pretty major overlaps here. There are ways to approach texts rationally. There are ways to doubt some of it (I don't think the Archbishop of Canterbury believes in the homophobic stuff or that the world was literally created in six days whereas I am pretty sure Falwell did) without doubting all of it. We can be critical. We can be nuanced. We can be _human._

We all know that the majority of modern Christians do not believe literally in the talking snake and the 950 year old man and fire and brimstone. The evidence for this premise is overwhelming. We also know the majority of atheists don't believe that the Bible is evil or entirely absent of fact and good teachings. Likewise, there is overwhelming evidence for this. I think most intelligent Christians (and most intelligent atheists, for that matter) congregate somewhere around the Thomas Jefferson model: Belief in 'something bigger' + admiration for the moral precepts and philosophy = Christian. 

And why not? I don't see that Jesus could possibly have asked for anything more. Crucially, absolutely none of that requires certainty in the supernatural or irrational or unknowable. Stuff like resurrections and rivers of blood and revelation are, essentially, distractions, vestiges of pagan myth. Absolutely nobody vaguely rational really believes them. No I cannot prove disbelief, of course, but if there _is _belief there it is not exercised in the lifestyles of the believer: Nobody vaguely rational lives as though they think there is _actually _eternal life after death. If they did, they wouldn't bother with the seatbelt. Suffice to say, asserting that a lot of this stuff is true is a major distraction from what is actually important and relevant. Which is presumably why most Christians are rather embarrassed of a lot of the Old Testament. 

Which goes back to 'writing what you know': It's okay to 'write what you believe', even if the belief is mad. It's especially okay to do it in the realm of fiction. Nobody could argue otherwise. The simple ask -- demand, actually -- is that beliefs in _anything_, whether it's string theory or Lot's wife do not call those beliefs facts until they are proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is not to assert dominance over one way of thinking or be rude or whatever else you may be insinuating. No, it is to protect the language. 

Because the language DOES need protecting. We all need to agree on standards for what words mean. That debate is probably the most important one there is for any writer, for any human actually. This is not difficult. Gravity? That's a fact. Do semicolons exist? Yes, that's a fact too. Can wormholes lead to other dimensions? Potentially, but it's not a fact. Can human beings live to the age 950? Unlikely, also not a fact. This isn't hard.


----------



## ritudimrinautiyal (Feb 11, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> I'm spinning this off the Worst Advice thread.
> 
> Write What You Know
> 
> ...


Last paragraph just hit the nail hard. I totally agree with you what you all wrote. 

Thanks

Ritu


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2021)

Just started reading _Queen's Gambit._  Apparently Walter Tevis was a good chess player.  It's interesting that he chose to tell the story through a female POV.  It makes it more interesting and the character is less stereotypocal.  One thing I finding interesting is that he writes a lot of chess moves and games.   I'm not that interested in the game, or know much about it, but it doesn't really matter.  It's easy to read the scene without understanding the strategy of the game, you can get the gist of if she is winning and how she is feeling.  

It gave me a lot of confidence, because I am basing my novel on finance and the stock market and I was worried that people may not get it or want to read about it, but I think that I can write it in such a way that people can if they want to learn about the financial principles I include, or they can just get the gist of what's happening, and gloss over those parts.  

Great to see how an author heeds to 'write what you know'.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 16, 2021)

Well, five pages into this discussion I'm wondering what it would look like to flout the maxim and write what I don't know. 

That's it! I'm going to write completely ignorant of my subject matter. I don't want to know a thing.

Stay tuned, this should be good.


----------



## Kent_Jacobs (Feb 16, 2021)

I still think the old saying 'write from your own experience' is much clearer, if a little flawed.


----------



## Foxee (Feb 16, 2021)

TheMightyAz said:


> I still think the old saying 'write from your own experience' is much clearer, if a little flawed.


Never heard that one. But that's okay.

No research! None. Writers should only write what they have experienced. So before I write a bank heist I'm gonna grab my team and my ski mask, commit a little crime.

Stay tuned! This also should be good!


----------



## MistWolf (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxee said:


> Well, five pages into this discussion I'm wondering what it would look like to flout the maxim and write what I don't know.
> 
> That's it! I'm going to write completely ignorant of my subject matter. I don't want to know a thing.
> 
> Stay tuned, this should be good.



But will you avoid _all_ that you know? Will you avoid writing techniques that you know? How to convey emotions? How to put yourself in the character's head? How to imagine what it would be like to be, say a robin taking a grasshopper back to its nest, caught in a thunderstorm? Or to be a Finn laying in the snow, readying her Mosin Nagant as she waits for the invading Russians? Or to be that invading Russian? 

Or will there be _something_ in this story that you know?


----------



## Foxee (Feb 16, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> But will you avoid _all_ that you know? Will you avoid writing techniques that you know? How to convey emotions? How to put yourself in the character's head? How to imagine what it would be like to be, say a robin taking a grasshopper back to its nest, caught in a thunderstorm? Or to be a Finn laying in the snow, readying her Mosin Nagant as she waits for the invading Russians? Or to be that invading Russian?
> 
> Or will there be _something_ in this story that you know?


I don't think it'll be easy. But for those who do know it'll still probably be comedy.

In fact, I've already done this years ago. I had written a little piece about a lawyer trying to defend a man who had committed the perfectly reasonable crime of killing the passenger next to him on a flight who insisted on talking and spoiling his cherished quiet time. The part I knew (being annoyed by fellow passengers) turned out just fine. The court scene was funny for more reasons than I intended, one of the comments being from someone who had experience in courtroom law who kindly said that they enjoyed the story but it was a scene that would never play out in any actual courtroom.

If you write from ignorance, expect some corrections.


----------



## thepancreas11 (Feb 16, 2021)

I've always taken this to mean, "Put the little human moments in your work so that people can understand it." It's no secret that the best comedy is the stuff that notices very specific and very shared aspects of our humanity. I think the same applies to writing. People want to see themselves reflected in the characters they read--not entirely, but in the little things.


----------



## indianroads (Feb 16, 2021)

Back to the original issue - 
None of us know everything, and it's important to recognize that fact. If we only wrote about things we experienced or had direct knowledge of, (IMO) there wouldn't be much SciFi of Fantasy written. I don't know about the rest here, but I've never stood on Mars or cast a spell.

I wrote my first novels back in the 1980's, and spent a lot of time in libraries doing research. These days we have this wonderful thing called the internet, and search engines like google and yahoo, which makes the research a lot easier.

So, we can't always write what we know or have experienced, so we need to do research. 

An extreme example: as a male, if I had to write an erotic sex scene from a female perspective, I would ask a ton of (probably) very embarrassing questions, then find beta readers to let me know where I went wrong.

We can write _anything_ - but it's important to recognize the limits of our knowledge and experience, and do due-diligence to get it right.


----------



## VRanger (Feb 16, 2021)

Foxee said:


> I don't think it'll be easy. But for those who do know it'll still probably be comedy.
> 
> In fact, I've already done this years ago. I had written a little piece about a lawyer trying to defend a man who had committed the perfectly reasonable crime of killing the passenger next to him on a flight who insisted on talking and spoiling his cherished quiet time. The part I knew (being annoyed by fellow passengers) turned out just fine. The court scene was funny for more reasons than I intended, one of the comments being from someone who had experience in courtroom law who kindly said that they enjoyed the story but it was a scene that would never play out in any actual courtroom.
> 
> If you write from ignorance, expect some corrections.



That's OK. You virtually never see a courtroom scene on TV which would happen that way in a court of law, either. They'd never finish a trial, as counsel for both sides would spend more time behind bars for contempt of court than examining witnesses.


----------

