# Writing about things you've no business writing about. (1 Viewer)



## Dictarium (Sep 5, 2013)

Drug use, its affects and those of withdrawal. Suicide. Mental illness. Terminal Illness. Murder. The loss of a child.

Are there some things where, no matter how much research you've done, you still have no business writing about them if you've not any experience dealing with them, whether first-person or second-? My most recent Literary Maneuvers entry involved one of the above and, I'm not going to lie, I felt a little bit with including it. I felt that it was the natural culmination of the story, it made sense thematically, and it's how I wanted the story to end, but I'd never known someone who experienced that thing, and so I felt as if I was... I don't know... over-stepping my boundaries when I did included it.

Does anyone else ever feel that way when you include one of the above - or anything else that's a serious issue that you've never experienced - in your stories? Do you have any advice (other than the traditional research) for dealing with them in a more convincing way so that it doesn't seem as if it's being written by someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about? How do you feel about the idea that someone either should or should not write about a sensitive or taboo subject if they've little-to-no experience with it?


----------



## mklemo (Sep 5, 2013)

Not that I'm an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination, but personally, as long as you're sincere about it and don't seem like you're just trying to add pointless drama, then I don't see anything wrong with it.  I once wrote a short-story about a girl who tried to commit suicide, and her brief experience on the "other side", and I submitted to be proofread by my Creative Writing class.  I've never had any personal experience with suicide (never tried it myself, and never known anyone close to met attempt it).  Interestingly, there were multiple people in that class who had friends or relatives that had committed suicide, and they said that my story gave them a new perspective and brought them some level of comfort.

In the book I'm writing right now, the main character is in mourning for his deceased sister.  The closest death I've ever experienced is probably my dog Susie (God rest her soul).  Apart from that, I have no experience with losing relatives or loved ones, but I still write about it.  The point is to give my protagonist some kind of emotional struggle that affects his behavior throughout the story.  He's also a bit of a drug addict, yet I've never taken drugs.

Having said all of that, I think someone with actual experience with these things would certainly be better at describing the feelings and struggles associated with them.  BUT, fiction is all about hypothetical situations that don't necessarily happen to the author in real life.  There's a lot of gun-fighting and combat in my book, yet the only gun I've ever really shot was a BB-gun when I was a kid.

I'd definitely say to research the subject before writing about it.  A simple google search can turn up lots of results on people's experiences with things such as what you listed above.  Getting feedback from someone you know in person is even better, as long as they're comfortable talking about it.  You definitely don't want to write something that you know absolutely nothing about, but I think getting feedback from other people can certainly help, without having to experience it yourself. (And Heaven forbid, I certainly hope you haven't had to go through any of that!) Some people may disapprove of it, but others may actually be able to connect to it somehow (like how some of those people reacted - in a positive way -to my short-story about the suicidal girl).  Again, as long as you're making a sincere effort, I don't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## Leyline (Sep 5, 2013)

The oft-repeated advice to 'write what you know' is sometimes taken too literally. I don't consider it to concern actions and events so much as the emotional consequences those actions and events engender. _Everyone_ knows what loss and regret feels like. Everyone knows what fear and joy and pain are like. Everyone knows what it's like to be tempted, to succumb to temptation, to resist temptation. And so forth.

Dig deep and consider your own reactions to painful and tragic circumstances. This is not to say that you shouldn't do your research -- you should, and the internet has made this fairly easy. Forums exist where people discuss and share their own experiences with everything the OP mentioned. Find them and read the reports of those who have gone through such experiences. Find the common reactions. Relate them to your own memories and emotions of bad things that have happened to you. Attempt to fashion an emotional truth from this.

It's no guarantee of success, of course. Nothing is. But a sincere attempt to relate is sincerity in and of itself.

Good luck!


----------



## blazeofglory (Sep 5, 2013)

In fact most of what is written is imagined and derived from books that have such narratives. The question such fictionally fabricated stories mirror the society   one presents realistically is a question again. Novels mostly are fictional contents and the objective of writing novels is not to give a historical or descriptive event of some real events or to seem absolute real. The objective mostly is to give it artistic and philosophical elements and to entertain the reader


----------



## Jeko (Sep 5, 2013)

I feel the exact opposite. I want to write about these things, as I may never explore them first-hand (and hope not to) but still want to understand them.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm working on a novel concerning a boy surviving the murder of his mom.  My mom is very much alive.  I want to write this because I've never seen it written realistically.  
I'm doing a lot of research because I want it written accurately.
But, I think that, if a person is sincere and they do their research and they are empathetic, it can be fine.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Sep 5, 2013)

Twaddle! So Mary Shelley shouldn't have written The Monster, Bram Stocker shouldn't have written Dracula, Hilary Mantell shouldn't have written... I mean, she was never present in the 16th century.


----------



## cropofkids (Sep 5, 2013)

There is something to be said for experience giving you the best insight. That doesn't always give you the best perspective. A lot of the major emotions you list here are forms of grief and mourning, and like previously mentioned, those are pretty universal feelings. They are also never the same for each individual. It is true that researching these things can only give you so much information, there is nothing like actually greiving. Can you write it? Can't see why not.  Did Tolkien actually live in middle earth? How many people write stories from the perspective of an animal? Does Narnia exist? The best literature is not something that someone actually truly lived through, but believed in.


----------



## cropofkids (Sep 5, 2013)

Another way of looking at the whole "Write what you know" adage is that personally, I would be bored to tears writing about what I live right now. I have been encouraged by many many people to write about the unique family situation I find myself leading. But I don't want to. Writing is my escape from that reality. Finding myself lost in my novel is much more inspiring to me at this juncture than writing about the grief and merging of histories I am now enduring.


----------



## Sintalion (Sep 5, 2013)

While there are some _people _whom I feel have no business writing about some topics, I believe that everyone can write about everything without exception. Doesn't mean you'll do it well (or feel good writing about it), but I don't consider there to be a topic or several that someone has no business writing about. 


Mostly, I plum don't give a damn as long as it sounds good on paper.  Almost 100% of the time I know nothing about the one who wrote the story. Odds are astronomically high that I won't know anything after. Maybe the writer survived a bank robbery. Maybe they almost drowned when they were six. Unless they put it out there for folks to stick their noses in, I'm just not going to know and I don't judge them for it. 

Even reading a book, I honestly don't think to myself: Oh, this writer must've experienced a loss, it's so beautifully written. Or conversely, this person mustn't know what it's like to lose your shift at Wendy's. Someone with experience about losing a parent might have an _easier _time identifying the tinier elements, but it doesn't mean that someone who has both their parents alive and well can't reach that point in writing. The truth is, most experiences are individual and can't fully be expressed in words, so writers end up on a pretty level playing field when all's said and done.


----------



## Elowan (Sep 5, 2013)

Horse pucky!


----------



## blazeofglory (Sep 5, 2013)

Writing fiction is mostly born of imagination though one gives an air of reality and today we can exact a vast source of ideas through books or movies or news-medias and to come across such events in the neighborhood or elsewhere. There are such things in the air and today the internet can mine vast sources of knowledge.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 5, 2013)

On the flip side, I can easily imagine a book written by someone who not only has no experience in the subject, but has a political agenda and can present a bunch of crap convincingly.


----------



## philistine (Sep 5, 2013)

I'll just say what I said in a previous thread: I think you can write about them, though nothing beats the real deal. There are likely certain elements to all of those things that secondhand research could never help you reproduce. 

I personally wouldn't do it.


----------



## dale (Sep 5, 2013)

i think writing about drug use could be done by a non-user with research. look at all the drug counselors out there now who help rehabilitate addicts
when they've never done the drugs themselves. as far as the rest? mental illness? i think everyone's insane at one level or another. so that's
easy. murder? most of us have thought about murder and what it would be like to kill. or maybe not. maybe that's just me. ha ha. suicide? 
i think it's the same. the loss of a child? i think anyone with a child could imagine how it would feel to lose him/her. i think we imagine real things
as well as unreal things and make them truth. that's what the fiction writer does.


----------



## mklemo (Sep 5, 2013)

dale said:


> i think everyone's insane at one level or another.



THAT, my friend, we can agree on! 

(Back to the OP's question) Another example of writing about something without experiencing it is when a male writer creates a story from the perspective of a female, or vice versa.  One of my favorite authors, Brandon Sanderson, wrote a series called _Mistborn_, which is mostly from the perspective of a teenage girl.  As a man, I don't think he'd be able to understand female psychology the way an actual woman can, but I still thought it was a very well-written story with engaging characters, and his protagonist ended up being one of my favorite characters I've ever read about.

I've even dabbled into that myself.  The story I mentioned before that I wrote for my Creative Writing class was from the perspective of a teenage girl going to and returning from the "other side" after attempting suicide.  I'm pretty confident that my knowledge of female psychology is minimal at best, but I just wrote it how I thought best, and I decided having a female protagonist would benefit the story.  And guess what?  My story made a bunch of the girls in my class cry! XD (In a good way, I think, although I suppose they could have just been crying in disdain over my failed attempt at creating a convincing female character, haha).

Anyway, that's not really the same situation as the examples you've described, but the point I'm making, like most of the others have mentioned in this thread, is that fiction is not always writing about our personal experiences (even though they can certainly help give some insight that would enhance the story).  I'd say to just write what you think benefits your story the most.  And like I said before, as long as you put a sincere effort into it, I think your readers will be able to sense that and connect to it in the long run.


----------



## J Anfinson (Sep 5, 2013)

I think Dale hit the nail on the head. Through imagination we can write about pretty much anything as long as we either research it or see it in the world around us. I have no doubt that personal experiences are superior, but some things I also wouldn't recommend trying out for yourself (murder, suicide, drugs...).


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 6, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> Drug use, its affects and those of withdrawal. Suicide. Mental illness. Terminal Illness. Murder. The loss of a child.
> 
> Are there some things where, no matter how much research you've done, you still have no business writing about them if you've not any experience dealing with them, whether first-person or second-?



No.

Writers write most often about the human condition, even if their characters are not human. Because of that, there is nothing that is "off limits." However, writers must also keep their stories logical and as believable as possible, within their settings, if they want their commentary (if any) to be taken seriously. In short, don't come off like you're an expert Rocket Scientist and end up making a zillion technical gaffs that end up alienating your audience because they think you're an idiot...



> Does anyone else ever feel that way when you include one of the above - or anything else that's a serious issue that you've never experienced - in your stories? Do you have any advice (other than the traditional research) for dealing with them in a more convincing way so that it doesn't seem as if it's being written by someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about? How do you feel about the idea that someone either should or should not write about a sensitive or taboo subject if they've little-to-no experience with it?



For myself, I never come off like an idiot, so I don't have any serious worries about writing about something I don't know anything about...  The secret is one that you can apply to everything in your life :

Always try to be smart enough to know what you do not know.

So, for those people who yammer on about a subject while learned people recognize that the writer is obviously ignorant, the problem is quite clear - They are not smart enough to know what they do not know. However, very smart people have a solution that comes hand in hand with being human. It's one thing that demonstrates our intellectual capacity is greater than a turnip or a chimpanzee - We are able to generalize with a fair degree of accuracy, as long as the subject rests comfortably within a standard deviation or so from our normal experience.

Can you describe the loss of a loved one, even though you may have never experienced it? Probably so and, if you're well read or very well experienced, you could probably do an excellent job of it, too. Why? Well, we can empathize - We can correctly identify what another person may be feeling or thinking about. We have developed, in essence, a "Theory of Mind." (Theory of mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) This is a pivotal tool in our complex bone-box of assets.

A writer is as entitled to use that tool in order to address experiences just as much as an actual experiencer is. The difference is whether or not a writer clearly claims direct knowledge of such an experience, which few writers ever do. (Else, the world is filled with murders, alien invasions, werewolves and lovesick vampires....)


----------



## Greimour (Sep 7, 2013)

I used to avoid writing about things I hadn't experienced, but then it came down to a question of : "what is experience"

I had a dream once where my father was going to die. My father was my hero (and is still very much alive and as best I know, well) but in my dream we were not on speaking terms. I had to overcome my dislike for the man in order to accept his feelings before he died. At first I had refused to even acknowledge his death as a sad thing and maintained the hatred. Eventually, however, I overcame my hatred and finally hugged him and cried. I woke up with a constricted throat and a pain in my chest. I wanted nothing more than to go see my father and hug him until I fell back to sleep.

Though it had only been a dream, had I really not experienced it? Mentally and emotionally, I felt like I had. Only reality of the situation upon waking did the literal experience by way of definition change. 

After that, I was able to write in more depth using only imagination.


Now for a direct reply to what you asked about:

If you have never taken drugs, that doesn't mean you don't know their effects. The biggest deterrent used is the negative effects drugs can have. As a writer, you can be as extreme as you want. As long as it is plausable, you just have to make the character believable. No two people experience the same drug exactly the same way. You are more likely to find to identical snowflakes. I would suggest a middle ground on drug use. The higher the dose the higher the extreme, that way, you aren't likely to encounter people who can 100% deny the possibility of any side-effect your character has. Just like one person can eat a peanut and gain nutrients, whilst another has an allergic reaction and dies.

For suicide, you can tackle it any number of ways. Hopelessness is a huge factor in many cases, or Trapped in other cases. Other methods are included, but the over-ruling common factor is "No way out except death" - "death is the only escape" or "I would rather die than continue" ... if you express one of those emotions effectively, whether you have felt it or not doesn't matter. The chances are, by getting it across properly, a feeling of empathy is created and you yourself will feel like you have experienced the matter - in which case you are as experienced enough to gain the right to convey the feeling. 
Again, it comes down to defining what experience is. As long as you mentally and emotionally felt it, then does that not mean you experinced it? Empathy, Dream, Imagination, whatever... experience isn't in doing something.
A wise man speaking about death has not died, or he would not be speaking about it - yet wisdom comes from experience... some answers exist outside logic.

Terminal illness... I think it greatly lies in empathy... but more than that, in the character. If the patient is trying to live a happy life, it's all about painting the happy picture whilst the audience knows the character will eventually die. The more loveable the character, the less people want the character to die and the more they want a miraculous cure. Having the character still die is the ultimate conclusion that the reader would have expected, but making the reader either cry or be so proud of the main character that they couldn't allow themselevs to cry (or whatever else your objective is) - reaching that conclusion when the reader finishes the book, that is what a truly gripping story achieves. Of course, you as the author haven't died of terminal illness, but the readers would never be angry with you for it.


I said 2 posts ago I was going bed, that was probably an hour or 2 ago, I am definitely going bed, but I hope my 'dream-state' ramble was put across effectively.

My only point really was this:

Everyone has the right to write about whatever they choose. The right is yours and experience or otherwise does not mean a damn thing. 
If I write about suicide, no one can tell me I was wrong for doing so except me. 


Cadence point of view is the best to have, imo.


~Kev.


----------



## Sam (Sep 7, 2013)

If I had to experience all the things I've written about, I'd have to become a mass-murdering, sociopathic, drug-addled, PTSD-afflicted, terminally ill, bullet-wounded, obsessive-compulsive paranoid schizophrenic with a strong tendency towards violent outbursts. 

Wouldn't I be peachy?


----------



## sir_vile_minds (Sep 7, 2013)

I used to write a lot of stuff involving the protagonist murdering people for various reasons (the 2 I can think of are from taking cocaine and the other was a taxi driver who hated London tourists so went "Tourist Bowling")  but I've had no experience in either. However, I've read a lot of crime-fic to get an idea of what it might be like to do such things. So, saying that, I think anybody can write about anything, as long as they do the research.

(I know, I've probably just repeated what everybody has said.)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 7, 2013)

Sam said:


> If I had to experience all the things I've written about, I'd have to become a mass-murdering, sociopathic, drug-addled, PTSD-afflicted, terminally ill, bullet-wounded, obsessive-compulsive paranoid schizophrenic with a strong tendency towards violent outbursts.


This explains much I had wondered about 

More seriously, I have written from a woman's point of view several times, and felt perfectly comfortable with it. In some ways that is about as different as is possible, someone who has experienced any of those other things listed in the OP such as death of someone close is, after all, only another human being not so different from yourself. I think it was RD Laing who said "There are no extraordinary people, only ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances." If you imagination is up to creating the circumstances you should be able to imagine how an ordinary person would react. That also means that the things people do to themselves like suicide and drug addiction are a reaction to a circumstance, these people are not essentially different to us, we can easily understand them, it is understanding/imagining the circumstance that leads to the behaviour that is difficult sometimes.

One could even argue that it is easier to see and write from outside than it is when involved.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 7, 2013)

On the flip side, there is a real danger in writing about things you don't know about in that you can inadvertently promote a stereotype* or a piece of "common lore" that is not only false, but dangerous/harmful**.  You, also, run the risk of destroying suspension of disbelief if your work is read by someone who is knowledgable on the topic.

*such as the alleged tendency for gay men to be effeminate
**such as the the idea that increasing gun restrictions makes a people safer


----------



## Kevin (Sep 7, 2013)

Yes...to paraphrase: "If you can dazzle them, baffle them..." If writing doesn't work you can always have a go at politics.


----------



## J Anfinson (Sep 7, 2013)

If you *can't* dazzle them, baffle them.


----------



## Lewdog (Sep 7, 2013)

The most successful people at suicide, make horrible writers about it.



Let that sink in a minute.


----------



## Blade (Sep 7, 2013)

Greimour said:


> My only point really was this:
> 
> Everyone has the right to write about whatever they choose. The right is yours and experience or otherwise does not mean a damn thing.
> If I write about suicide, no one can tell me I was wrong for doing so except me.



'Write about what you don;t know' would be more profitable from the authors point of view as it offers a challenge and expansion. Who really wants to re-hash the known.



Lewdog said:


> The most successful people at suicide, make horrible writers about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Let that sink in a minute.



Though mercifully brief.:cookie:


----------



## ppsage (Sep 7, 2013)

From a practical point of view, I don't think it's possible to write about something you haven't experienced in any form. I mean, you've heard of it right? Read about it, watched movies, heard stories. Somehow you at least know about it's existence. Those are all valid forms of experience, else we hang up our pens. Then it really becomes a matter of degree and perspective and imagination.


----------



## JermShar (Sep 8, 2013)

Personally i think its alright as long as you don't try to pass it off as real. For example Truddi Chase's book "When the Rabbit Howls" is real and Based on her personal experience. Now how pissed off would multiple personality(DID) patients be to find out it was fake after all?  Pretty much just use your best guess at the situation to fit what you need, I think. It should be like every other topic. Don't write a stereotypical book about war vets in 'Nam and their use of LSD and try to say "this is how it really is". 
There are plenty of military books written by non military personnel. They just research and ask military people about their own experiences and how things work.

You should be alright. Just make it tasteful and some research on the taboo subject would help too. Jackpot if you know anyone who has experienced it to talk with if they would.


----------



## DondreKhan (Sep 8, 2013)

I feel it can be a bit strange writing about the Holocaust or something like that, but when I do it I have the intent of bringing up some little known part of it, so at least it's doing some good.  I don't write about concentration camps which is so over done in popular culture that it feels like people are exploiting the Holocaust for profit.

One of my stories deals with this same topic.  The character Kevin is writing creepy stories, and his friend Alex tries to explain to him why they're creepy, even though he has a good intent, at least according to what he says.  She tells him that the topic of his story is not something that he can ever understand as a boy, and that his writing about it with a highly self-insert female character feels like slum tourism.


----------



## Sam (Sep 8, 2013)

ppsage said:


> From a practical point of view, I don't think it's possible to write about something you haven't experienced in any form. I mean, you've heard of it right? Read about it, watched movies, heard stories. Somehow you at least know about it's existence. Those are all valid forms of experience, else we hang up our pens. Then it really becomes a matter of degree and perspective and imagination.



Historians write about events they've never experienced. Should they get a time machine and go back for first-hand experience?


----------



## Terry D (Sep 8, 2013)

The real purpose of writing fiction is to elicit emotions from the reader. It is in the author's ability to stimulate those emotional connections that the accuracy of the story lies. Everyone has experience with the entire gamut of emotions, so our experience tanks are already filled. Communicating that experience through a story becomes a matter of craft.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 8, 2013)

Sam said:


> Historians write about events they've never experienced. Should they get a time machine and go back for first-hand experience?


The historians I've read always have vast experience of their subject, from a wide variety of sources. How can experience not be first-hand? Knowledge perhaps can, but experience seems to be first-hand by definition.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 8, 2013)

Terry D said:


> The real purpose of writing fiction is to elicit emotions from the reader.


This is just trying to start a debate. People have many purposes when writing fiction. Obviously.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 8, 2013)

Bloggsworth said:


> Twaddle! So Mary Shelley shouldn't have written The Monster, Bram Stocker shouldn't have written Dracula, Hilary Mantell shouldn't have written... I mean, she was never present in the 16th century.


It depends what you see Mary Shelly and the others as writing about. Taken literally she may have no experience of monsters, but figuratively she may well have had experience of rejection and suspicion for being different.


----------



## Sam (Sep 8, 2013)

ppsage said:


> The historians I've read always have vast experience of their subject, from a wide variety of sources. How can experience not be first-hand? Knowledge perhaps can, but experience seems to be first-hand by definition.



Unless they're immortal and were standing on the battlefield during the American Revolution, for instance, how can it be first-hand experience? You didn't take part in what happened. You're taking the word of people who did, and of historiographical documentation, but in no way can a modern-day historian attest to having first-hand experience of events that s/he wasn't even born for. That's where research plays a vital role, and it's exactly the same with writing. 

I've fired shotguns, pistols, and rifles in the name of research for novels, but I'm not about to murder someone to get 'authentic' experience of what that will feel or look like. Authors possess this great thing called imagination which allows us to fill in the blanks. I've spoken to several soldiers, visited an army barracks local to me, and conducted research into every aspect of military life in order to give my stories credibility, but I'm not going to join the military for first-hand experience.

That's why I don't put stock in this 'write what you know' claptrap. What I know today is not what I'll know in ten years' time.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 8, 2013)

I can write slander which has no basis in reality.  It will elicit an emotional reaction.  Is that the purpose of fiction?

I argue that the purpose of fiction is to communicate truth (or, at least, what the author believes to be true) in a way which emphasizes precision over accuracy.


----------



## Sam (Sep 8, 2013)

"The purpose of fiction is to communicate truth."

Seriously? It's called 'fiction' for a reason.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 8, 2013)

Aesop's fables, to pick a more obvious example, are fiction whose purpose is to communicate the truth about the weaknesses of mankind.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 8, 2013)

> The real purpose of writing fiction is to elicit emotions from the reader





> This is just trying to start a debate. People have many purposes when writing fiction. Obviously.





> I argue that the purpose of fiction is to communicate truth



My own view: if fiction isn't enlightening or entertaining me, it's not doing much. It should do one, the other, or both. The best stories, in my opinion, do both.


----------



## Myers (Sep 8, 2013)

Sam said:


> "The purpose of fiction is to communicate truth."
> 
> Seriously? It's called 'fiction' for a reason.



It’s not about truth in the sense that it’s factual. It’s about depicting transcendent, larger truths about the world and human nature. That's something you can accomplish with fiction. And I'd say if you're not doing that on some level, there's a problem.


----------



## JermShar (Sep 8, 2013)

*fic·tion* _n._*1.**a. *An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
*b. *The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.

*2. *A lie.
*3.**a. *A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
*b. *The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.

*4. *_Law_ Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.



Meaning you can write about a world where rape victims turn into robotic natzi  squirels addicted to pcp, who kill jewish women and flash kids in the park and it would still be counted as fiction. Of course whether the public would read such a book is the issue. But for every story there is an audience and for every audience is a story.


----------



## Dictarium (Sep 8, 2013)

While fiction should be, to some extent, grounded in reality, it by no means has to communicate what the author believes is true. If that were the case, then I would want to immediately contact J. K. Rowling's and J. R. R. Tolkien's dealers because whatever they're selling is the most amazing hallucinogen in the world.

No, I'd argue, outside the dictionary definition, that the purpose of fiction is to communicate ideas and themes through a reality believable and relatable - or, perhaps, well-explained - enough that the reader can buy in to and get lost in said reality. Yes, the stories themselves are very important but, at a base level, they are used as vehicles for authors to convey ideas and ideals; thoughts and themes.  

This is why I posed the questions that I did in the OP. Does a story suffer significantly enough to make it not worth writing if someone doesn't have first- or second-hand experience with the taboo or sensitive subjects. Suppose that there are two equally talented writers, and also that Writer A used to be an alcoholic while Writer B has been a temperant straightedge all his life. Is is possible that Writer B could convey a more realistic, more relatable, more beautifully conveyed, more engaging, better story about an alcoholic character than the equally talented Writer A who's had the experience of being one him-/herself? If one cannot ever strive to be as good as the former alcoholic at writing an alcoholic protagonist, then why bother? That is not to say that one should not bother to write if one cannot write the most amazing piece of literature ever penned by Man, but rather if you start out with the knowledge that your work is inferior because of the lacking of a specific experience, why not change your character to better fit your own experience? Or, on the flip-side, does it not effect the experience a significant amount? Even if it does, and a formerly or presently alcoholic reader comes across an objective inaccuracy about alcoholics, can realities conveyed in fiction be unbelievable so long as the theme or idea they're acting as a vehicle for is engaging or thought-provoking? At what point does the story suffer because of a lack of life experience on the writers end? Is it fair to say that a seventeen-year-old, no matter how talented, cannot write about adult experiences or life in general as well as an adult can because of the latter having more experience in life and adulthood?

These are the questions for which I've no answer. I'm done rambling for now, though.


----------



## Sam (Sep 8, 2013)

Lack of experience can be made up for with depth of research. The problem is, a lot of people are too lazy to do research. They'll say they can get away with it because it's "only a book". 

Do I know what's it like to be an alcoholic? Too well. Do I know what it's like to take drugs? No, but in-depth research and speaking to people who have taken the drug in question is the next best thing. If we limited our writing to what we've experienced in life, we couldn't write very much. 

I've never witnessed first-hand the process involved in launching a nuclear warhead, but I had to write a scene where it happened. What was I to do: spend years getting clearance to a missile silo, or spend months doing in-depth research to find what I needed? Everything we need to write something we've never experienced is right at our fingertips if we'd only get off our backsides and do the work.


----------



## JermShar (Sep 8, 2013)

Sam said:


> Lack of experience can be made up for with depth of research. The problem is, a lot of people are too lazy to do research. They'll say they can get away with it because it's "only a book".
> 
> Do I know what's it like to be an alcoholic? Too well. Do I know what it's like to take drugs? No, but in-depth research and speaking to people who have taken the drug in question is the next best thing. If we limited our writing to what we've experienced in life, we couldn't write very much.
> 
> I've never witnessed first-hand the process involved in launching a nuclear warhead, but I had to write a scene where it happened. What was I to do: spend years getting clearance to a missile silo, or spend months doing in-depth research to find what I needed? Everything we need to write something we've never experienced is right at our fingertips if we'd only get off our backsides and do the work.



exactly. I couldn't have said it better. No, really. I couldn't.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 8, 2013)

ppsage said:


> This is just trying to start a debate. People have many purposes when writing fiction. Obviously.



You might consider not making assumptions about others motives. Obviously.

The purpose of every chapter, every scene, every paragraph, and every sentence in a fictional work is to entice the reader to read the next chapter, scene, paragraph, or sentence. That is only done if the current sentence connects with the reader emotionally. Even if that connection is as mild as curiosity. Without touching the reader in some way the author will lose him or her and never be able to deliver whatever message is intended.


----------



## Myers (Sep 9, 2013)

Terry D said:


> You might consider not making assumptions about others motives. Obviously.
> 
> The purpose of every chapter, every scene, every paragraph, and every  sentence in a fictional work is to entice the reader to read the next  chapter, scene, paragraph, or sentence. That is only done if the current  sentence connects with the reader emotionally. Even if that connection  is as mild as curiosity. Without touching the reader in some way the  author will lose him or her and never be able to deliver whatever  message is intended.



That's the tactic, not a purpose. A purpose for fiction might be to entertain, or to deliver that message you're talking about. So I think ppsage is right; there are many purposes for fiction. And maybe you're the one making assumptions.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 9, 2013)

This discussion seems somewhat related to an issue in the social sciences.  Look up emic vs. etic.  Emic is like being in a white water raft.  Etic is like standing on a nearby mountain.  With etic, you can see where the raft is headed.  You can map out the river.   You can identify the surrounding environment.  It is a different perspective than experiencing the thrill of the white water rafting directly.   Both perspectives are valuable.  It might be  that an alcoholic can't write about alcoholism because they are too close to it.  They are too busy with the broncing and bucking of the ride to pay attention to what is going on around them.


----------



## godofwine (Sep 9, 2013)

When a story is written with an empathetic heart it seems more genuine. For the writer to feel what a person going through such things makes it easier to identify with. It is a very difficult thing for a writer to accomplish without coming off as fake and the fact that you can do it convincingly means you have achieved a huge step as a writer. Congrats. 

I began writing poetry writing poems about my life, but then I branched into using my creative mind to tell the story of others and so many times I have gotten hugs "Awww. You poor baby," only to tell these people that the stories are made up and not mine at all. It was that kind of writing that lead me to writing short stories and then novels. Now I just have to get those novels finished. 25,500 words in, 80k - 100k more to go at least. 



mklemo said:


> Not that I'm an expert on this subject by any stretch of the imagination, but personally, as long as you're sincere about it and don't seem like you're just trying to add pointless drama, then I don't see anything wrong with it.  I once wrote a short-story about a girl who tried to commit suicide, and her brief experience on the "other side", and I submitted to be proofread by my Creative Writing class.  I've never had any personal experience with suicide (never tried it myself, and never known anyone close to met attempt it).  Interestingly, there were multiple people in that class who had friends or relatives that had committed suicide, and they said that my story gave them a new perspective and brought them some level of comfort.
> 
> In the book I'm writing right now, the main character is in mourning for his deceased sister.  The closest death I've ever experienced is probably my dog Susie (God rest her soul).  Apart from that, I have no experience with losing relatives or loved ones, but I still write about it.  The point is to give my protagonist some kind of emotional struggle that affects his behavior throughout the story.  He's also a bit of a drug addict, yet I've never taken drugs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Terry D (Sep 9, 2013)

Myers said:


> That's the tactic, not a purpose. A purpose for fiction might be to entertain, or to deliver that message you're talking about. So I think ppsage is right; there are many purposes for fiction. And maybe you're the one making assumptions.



No, I'm not. The purpose of _the story, or book_ can be many things, but that is the aim of the entire body of work. I'm talking about the writing itself. If the author believes the reader will continue to read because his concept is so wonderful, he will be very surprised. The reader reads on because they feel connected to the story, and a skilled writer can create and maintain that connection with no direct experience in the activities he's writing about. As I said before we all have experience with the emotions involved, and emotion drives fiction.


----------



## Myers (Sep 9, 2013)

Terry D said:


> The real purpose of writing fiction is to elicit  emotions from the reader.



See, but you initially said the "purpose of writing fiction." Not the purpose of the writing itself. Sorry, but you weren't being very clear, and ppsage and I were responding based on that. What you're talking about is the tactic, what keeps readers engaged, not the bigger picture. Two different things. Although both concepts should be pretty obvious to anyone who has given any thought to it.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Sep 9, 2013)

"Writing to entertain" is a tactic, not a purpose.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 9, 2013)

> If the author believes the reader will continue to read because his concept is so wonderful, he will be very surprised.



I agree with Terry D. I believe that regardless of fantastic ideas, no matter how well they are woven into the narrative, a writer must be humble enough to value his audience over his own genius if he wants to be successful. The need for the audience to read on must come first. If part of a novel is the most _incredible _presentation of the subtle but stupendously pertinent theme of the story, but it doesn't make the reader want to read on, then the reader will not read on. And that next bit that ties the whole thing together will never get read.



> "Writing to entertain" is a tactic, not a purpose.



_"People will pay more to be entertained than educated__."_ Steve Allen


----------



## Terry D (Sep 9, 2013)

Myers said:


> See, but you initially said the "purpose of writing fiction." Not the purpose of the writing itself. Sorry, but you weren't being very clear, and ppsage and I were responding based on that. What you're talking about is the tactic, what keeps readers engaged, not the bigger picture. Two different things. Although both concepts should be pretty obvious to anyone who has given any thought to it.



No. The purpose of fiction is to keep readers reading--how you do that, the POV you choose, the narrative style, the structure of your story, are the techniques (tactics) the author can choose. Keeping readers engaged is a fundamental requirement not a choice.

Enough splitting of hairs, however, there's no point in dragging this on.


----------



## Myers (Sep 9, 2013)

Justin Rocket said:


> "Writing to entertain" is a tactic, not a purpose.



Really? Here’s a simple example. The purpose for telling a funny story would be to entertain. The tactic would be to include joke. You’ve got it just about backwards.


----------



## Myers (Sep 9, 2013)

Terry D said:


> No. The purpose of fiction is to keep readers reading--how you do that, the POV you choose, the narrative style, the structure of your story, are the techniques (tactics) the author can choose. Keeping readers engaged is a fundamental requirement not a choice.



See above.



Terry D said:


> Enough splitting of hairs, however, there's no point in dragging this on.



Sure.


----------

