# Writing what you know.



## Theglasshouse (Jun 9, 2019)

I still don't understand what is meant by write what you know and what it truly means. A writer's work is a subconscious process supposedly.

https://rlherron.com/2014/07/13/who-said-write-what-you-know/

I investigated the quote and some say mark twain (in a book of fiction it seems) or that Hemingway said it. Now I can say it was attributed to Hemingway because of the Atlantic saying where it came from. But they don't articulate what it truly means. Thus I need a new interpretation from someone who knows its definition. Because I believe stories are fabricated and are made from invention and imagination. Literary stories rely more on real life experiences but still use imagination. Genre stories do not seem to me based on real life. Thus write what you know will not apply in all cases for writers, and thus I don't understand the advice. Is what all I wrote about write what you know said a true or false fact? 

Thus I agree with the article that says that the imagination is what the advice truly means to people. It can't be experiencing many things that are part of your memory. Unless you live a life where others serve you as your source of inspiration. Even if based all on what is real. It is mostly made up. Which is to insist to write from the emotional experience. But that a person's experience is not huge as the above link argues. Why can experience serve a story?


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/08/dont-write-what-you-know/308576/ 

So unless I missing something it seems to be useless advice or misunderstood.

Thanks for your patience if I am wrong. The internet has countless sources and I might have missed some important advice from somewhere arguing for this point of view. Does anyone believe in this advice or knows what the saying of writing what you know means?

I think since experience can be imagined differently to suit our needs as storytellers. Thus dreaming is another word for this. 

I wish I could post something new. But it's a wip. I won't write stories for fear of writing with errors. (I am still waiting for my computer to arrive which needs to install a program so I have been plotting instead of writing).

Thus to continue what I mean what hemingway truly said and what he means by this is lost. Which is open to interpretation but it is lost in translation for writers. To understand what it truly means is to be inspired by his advice I will assume.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 9, 2019)

Nice question. Well researched. My favorite book is a book about two teenagers with cancer, written by an author who had "experiences of working in a hospital with children suffering from life-threatening illnesses" (Wikipedia). There are things in that book he obviously got from that experience. The book is set in Indianapolis, where the author lives.

The Old Man and the Sea takes place in Cuba, where Hemingway lived.

Coincidence? I don't think so. 

If you write about locations you know, cultures you know, and occupations you know, your book will be better. (Be more accurate, come alive, something like that.) Or you have to do a lot of research, and that still probably won't replace real living experiences.

You're not stuck in your own experiences, and authors have to write about things they haven't experienced. You can try to imagine what it's like to be different. It's fun. You're just at a disadvantage.

The advice is kind of boring. If you can, write about a place you have lived, in a culture you have lived it. Pick occupations that you know, even if only from reading. If you can't, do the best you can with research and imagination.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 9, 2019)

There’s a lot of different ways to “know” something. If you are born and live your whole life in Chicago, you definitely “know” Chicago. The gray area is when you have lived your whole life in Chicago but want/need to set your story in somewhere else. How do you set a story in Paris if you have never lived in Paris and still fulfill the requirements of a structure like “write what you know”? 

Arguably you cannot. Research is one thing, but you can’t research another life experience easily, right? How does a middle aged cisgendered man write from the POV of a twelve year old transgendered girl and claim to “know” that character without being a clumsy asshole?

The answer is to abandon “write what you know” and replace it instead with “write what is authentic”. It is possible to write ANYTHING authentically provided one can learn and articulate aspects that are accurate and let imagination do the rest. 

It’s not necessary to know people and places, it is necessary only to have a rich imagination and enough sense and humility to not trip over one’s own shoelaces. This is FICTION. Facts are malleable things


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 9, 2019)

I have read lots of military books where the writer had no actual military experience, and seemed to choose his weapons from a catalog (quite a few of those).
But when I read an author who had the genuine experience, the writing was more believable.



Also, you cannot impart strong feelings that you yourself have never experienced. If your work lacks true inspiration, it will show.
So *write what you know* applies to more than just subject matter. 



Write what you know, and research the hell out of what you don't.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 9, 2019)

In other words, *write from where you draw your wealth.
*


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 9, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Also, you cannot impart strong feelings that you yourself have never experienced. If your work lacks true inspiration, it will show.
> So *write what you know* applies to more than just subject matter.
> .



Not sure about this you know. I have never, thankfully, had a sibling die but my current WIP is about exactly that. 

I feel like I’m writing it authentically because while I have never experienced and therefore do not know “those feelings” I have lost important things and people and can imagine what that could be like. But as far as the direct emotional response to that, yes I am essentially B.S-ing. 

I have written about all kinds of feelings in all kinds of situations I have not directly or even sometimes even indirectly experienced (suicide, drug addiction, child molestation, etc) based on nothing more but “imagine this”, and been told numerous times I have captured it accurately. A couple of those stories are being published. 

So either I’m a very good liar or empathy,imagination, and a certain register of language alone can be a way to tap into emotional issues. 

I’m not saying it doesn’t help to have first hand experience, but I do disagree with the absolutist nature of “you can’t impart strong feelings you have not experienced” because that seems obviously untrue. Unless the definition of the feelings in question is employed very flexibly - e.g I do not know what it feels like to lose a sibling, but I do know what it feels like to lose a pet cat, I have experienced the general form of grief.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Not sure about this you know. I have never, thankfully, had a sibling die but my current WIP is about exactly that.
> .





Then you will likely draw that emotion from some other parallel experience. In which case you are writing about something you know because through your own experiences you can identify with that person.
You are always so literal.


----------



## Underd0g (Jun 9, 2019)

Here's from a strip I did a while back...


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 9, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Then you will likely draw that emotion from some other parallel experience. In which case you are writing about something you know because through your own experiences you can identify with that person.
> You are always so literal.



Lol, maybe!

I think the main problem I have with 'write what you know' is it seems such an obvious truism, you know? 

Like, if we are going to be so broadminded about what it means to 'know something' that we will accept completely tangential experiences (I have siblings, I have seen them hurt, I have worried about them = I therefore know what it means to see a sibling die) as 'writing what we know' then what possible constraints are there? 

Can one not apply a tangential experience of being locked in a basement or going to a shitty school to being a prisoner at Alcatraz circa 1925? If not, why not? Are there not parallel feelings and possibly some crossover realities that can simply be padded with enough research? Is 'knowing' then not just a case of Research + Some vague emotional Connection x Drive?

It seems to me that one can, effectively, know the core substance of ANY kind of story there is irrespective of experience of first-hand-knowledge. That to 'know' something is simply to do a lot of research, then think about it deeply and empathetic ally enough, and try to apply as much personal intuition as possible to the imagined scenario to create a sense of authenticity. 

Which, fine, but then what is the point of harping on about 'writing what you know'? Why not just 'write what inspires your interest and emotional investment'? What's the difference?


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jun 10, 2019)

For a long time I had a strong revulsion to the "write what you know" adage, because I felt it prevented me from writing the kind of fiction I liked. If everyone wrote what we knew, where would all the aliens go? The fairies? The dragons? The other planets? A more useful bit of advice might be "write what you read." 

BUT the adage does come from truth. I think what luckyscars is talking about is right on point--when you write about what you don't know (a sibling dying), use what you do know (grief) to tap into that experience. It is also a helpful bit of advice for places, occupations, etc. (like EmmaSohan mentioned); my current longer WIP is set in my home city and the characters are mostly high school and college students, because I did not feel like researching a new city and different jobs (I still had to end up doing a bunch of research, because many of the characters had experiences which I never have had, of course!)

And when you do come to the point where you want to write more directly from personal experience, that can be a great source of material, as I have more recently found.


----------



## Chris Stevenson (Jun 10, 2019)

I might write about what I know, but somebody is always going to know more about what I know than what I think I know. So, on to research!


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 10, 2019)

I am bad at writing my past in a work of fiction. What do I know a lot about? Video-games I know as as a consumer, anime, mental disease, a lot about news headlines particularly of politicians. My occupation is difficult to say since I had only been a teacher. I know some psychology. All a result of studying teaching. I will assume write what you know means the pain and emotions that make up tragedy that can be used as story material.


I agree with emma sohan, who said that Hemingway wrote from a different perspective. Anyways here is an attempt on my part to outline a story on writing what you know on mental disease:

It's not complete yet. It seems plot based. I am trying to write character based fiction by creating change. This is the protagonist. The antagonist would be different.


> I want responsibility. I want fun. I want adventure. I want to learn.
> 
> This is opposed to being lazy. This is opposed to being boring. This is opposed to avoid being a stoic. This is opposed to not taking steps towards a bright future such as avoiding poverty.
> 
> ...



I agreed with lucky as we share the same opinion that facts can be used for imagination. Imagination is easier to do. Agreed with Ralph that you need to research what you don't know.

As for underdog's sketch my response is, I don't think it's easy to write a story on mental disease but I tried in this post an outline or plotting one. I use to draw blanks, with that thought process in the cartoon but I am improving.


----------



## BornForBurning (Jun 10, 2019)

Write about what you know in an emotional sense. The kinds of conflict you understand. For me, it's temptation, and the lies that underpin seduction into evil. It's something I get on a deep, visceral level.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 10, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> For a long time I had a strong revulsion to the "write what you know" adage, because I felt it prevented me from writing the kind of fiction I liked. If everyone wrote what we knew, where would all the aliens go? The fairies? The dragons? The other planets? A more useful bit of advice might be "write what you read."
> 
> BUT the adage does come from truth. I think what luckyscars is talking about is right on point--when you write about what you don't know (a sibling dying), use what you do know (grief) to tap into that experience. It is also a helpful bit of advice for places, occupations, etc. (like EmmaSohan mentioned); my current longer WIP is set in my home city and the characters are mostly high school and college students, because I did not feel like researching a new city and different jobs (I still had to end up doing a bunch of research, because many of the characters had experiences which I never have had, of course!)
> 
> And when you do come to the point where you want to write more directly from personal experience, that can be a great source of material, as I have more recently found.



I guess people who think 'write what you know' is some kind of groundbreaking wisdom, as opposed to an extremely broad and very obvious writer 101 cliche, would say it factors into stories about aliens, etc. because it becomes part of how you approach that subject _besides the aliens._ 

What I mean is this: If you are a plumber who also really likes science-fiction, writing from the primary POV of a plumber on the spacecraft being attacked by aliens could fall under that 'write what you know' banner (because it at least mostly will involve What You Know) whereas writing about being an electrician or a cook or a navigator would be electing to divorce yourself even further from your comfort zone. 

Write what you know would mean writing characters who are based on yourself or at least people or bits of people you have met and somewhat know, as opposed to ones more or less totally conjured up. Writing what you know would mean probably avoiding a story line that requires a lot of sensory knowledge of hot, sandy deserts if you've lived in Alaska all your life and never seen any other climate.

If this 'advice' sounds extremely obvious and/or underwhelming...that's because it is. 

It has never ONCE crossed my mind to wonder if I KNOW enough about the subject I was driven to write about. Moreover, following such a line of inquiry sounds like a terrible rabbit hole, one that would invariably lead to a crisis of confidence. Most people _should_ have the requisite self-awareness  and humility to realize automatically if they 'know' enough about something before sitting down to create a story. I don't write hard science fiction because I don't know nearly enough about science. 

Tl;dr: This is just another detour to non-write. If you believe in your story, smash through this erroneous 'advice' and leave it behind in the dirt.


----------



## Sir-KP (Jun 10, 2019)

A tale of a schoolboy getting bored in class doodling characters from his mind fiction, embarking on the journey of masturbation and internet porn after school.

Writing about what I know would be so boring, I guess...


----------



## CyberWar (Jun 10, 2019)

I think that's a good advice to abide. No amount of research will ever beat genuine personal experiences. I think the mark of an excellent author is the ability to merge these personal experiences with researched facts and second-hand accounts, weaving them together in an entirely fictional story that nonetheless has a sound base in reality. It's hard to write a compelling adventure without having ever felt the thrill of danger oneself, just as it is hard (not to mention somewhat hypocritical) to address a social wrong without ever having experienced it.

Of course, that might not always be the case, such as in fantasy/sci-fi settings where it is physically impossible to obtain actual first-hand experiences (at least without resorting to mind-altering drugs). Still, even so, good authors will manage to weave in actual real-life experiences and situations into these entirely-fictional settings.

So I would say the best writers do abide the aforementioned axiom to at least some degree, and it is definitely worth heeding. One might have read all the books in the world about a particular subject, yet his work featuring it might still come off as dry and lifeless if the author has zero personal experience with the subject to liven up his story. It's the same reason why it is common for movie actors to train and study the professions of the characters they are to portray.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 10, 2019)

In my opinion, "write what you know" is the least useful bit of writing advice ever put in print. It really doesn't say anything. Does it mean if I'm a factory worker living in the Midwest that I should only write about factory workers, or set all my stories in the Midwest? Does it mean my protagonist can't be an organic farmer if all I eat is junk food? Or does it mean I need to stick to writing about emotions and points-of-view that I have experienced? It's all garbage.

Writing is about exploring your characters, and, by extension, exploring yourself. If all you ever do is go places and see things that you already know you aren't doing much exploring. If there is any value in "write what you know" at all it might be in terms of choosing a genre, but even there it is iffy advice and, at best, only suitable for those just starting out. I would always advise a young writer to start out writing in a genre he, or she, is familiar with, but I'd also advise them to expand their horizons whenever they wish. 

Do I write what I know? Sure, but that's only because I find it interesting. I've also written pieces which contain characters, attitudes, events and locations I'm completely unfamiliar with and the results have been terrific. If you boil down the meaning of "write what you know" I think it can be restated as, "write truth". If there is truth in what you write it will be genuine and readers will respond to that.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 10, 2019)

More I think about it, “write what you know” sounds like the writing equivalent of “don’t try to fly without wings” or “make sure the pool you’re about to dive into head first has water”


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 10, 2019)

You are being far too literal with the saying.
It doesn't mean to write ONLY those things you have personally done yourself.
It means to write about the kinds of things that you know.

I'm from Tucson, so obviously I don't write nautical books. That'd be stupid, right?
But I do write survival stories based in the desert, because I know that.

See, the reason for the old adage is because when you write what you truly know, write from where you draw your wealth as a writer, it shows.
The imagery is better, the experience is more tangible. 

Sure, you can certainly TRY to write these things without having experienced any parallel in life, but no guarantee it'll work.
Just because you are doing it now is not really proof that the adage is wrong.
Sell a thousand copies of that book and I'll agree with you.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 10, 2019)

PS: Another reason to write what you know is because one of the kisses of death in a review, the thing that will end all further sales, is when the reader says you are* "out of your depth". *
I've actually seen Indie books whose* last review* contained that phrase.
Sales ranking had more digits than Pi.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 11, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> You are being far too literal with the saying.
> It doesn't mean to write ONLY those things you have personally done yourself.
> It means to write about the kinds of things that you know.
> 
> ...



At no point did I say, it's wrong. I said it does not seem useful as advice. That's a totally different thing.

You yourself have mentioned (paraphrasing) your belief that everybody essentially writes dog shit until they hit 200,000 words. With that in mind, are we sure we want to lay down rules about what subject matter new writers should concern themselves with? If so, approximately where do we draw the line? Can a Arizona writer set their story in Nevada and still be writing 'what they know' given the very similar history and geography of much of these two states? What about New Mexico and Utah? What about Colorado? Texas? Wyoming? Kansas? California? Rhode Island? Canada? Madagascar? Italy? The North Pole? Mars? 

_Isn't pretty much all non-biographical fiction writing, to some degree, and exercise in writing the 'unknown'? 
_
I realize you may be rolling your eyes, and already typing about how I am being too literal again, but please try to understand a moment that many people would be genuinely confused as to what this sort of advice means in practice. And I really think those who give advice have a responsibility to explain what exactly they mean and make sure it holds up in court if they are going to preach it.

On which note, I definitely think it is not stupid for somebody from Tucson to write nautical books - so long as they research. Unusual, maybe. Ironic. Sounds like the sort of thing that could raise a haw-haw-haw on a late night talk show interview. But you cannot seriously be suggesting that a sane-minded writer who comes from the desert is taking a major risk of screwing themselves over just by experimenting with a location that does not reflect what is in their zip code?

If that is what you are saying, sorry, but that's ridiculous. George RR Martin lives in New Mexico and has done for a long time. As far as I know he has lived in the United States for most if not all his adult life, yet I don't recall the castles in Westeros being made of adobe or there being anything that felt even vaguely drawn from his background. I believe he got most of his ideas for his fantasy novels from reading a lot of (mainly European) history and taking a vacations in Europe. JK Rowling obviously didn't go to Hogwarts, but she didn't even go to the kind of school that Hogwarts is based on (a private English boarding school) and has said herself in interviews she took such cues on setting largely from existing school stories. Moreover she is a grown woman writing from the POV of a little boy. Not exactly 'writing what she knew'.

I think what you are saying is that writers should look firstly to their immediate experiences and environment for cues as to story ideas, and I would agree - it definitely makes no sense for somebody who has spent their whole lives working as a bouncer in New York and not traveled to then not look to that experience first​ for inspiration before lunging into [random]. But failing that, I don't see a problem with deciding to set your story anywhere the inspiration takes you, and strongly disagree that it lends itself to poorer writing.

But really I just think you are giving WWYK way too much credit. In my opinion, it's an exercise in common sense.



Ralph Rotten said:


> PS: Another reason to write what you know is because one of the kisses of death in a review, the thing that will end all further sales, is when the reader says you are* "out of your depth". *
> I've actually seen Indie books whose* last review* contained that phrase.
> Sales ranking had more digits than Pi.



Yeah, I'd agree. I am not an Indie author myself so I appreciate there are many more more occupational hazards with reviews, etc, but I have been downloading a lot of self-published content lately with KU (including your book!) I gotta say even the reasonably well-reviewed stuff is often really terrible when it comes to authenticity and even basic fact-checks. Certainly not on the same level of craftsmanship as your book.

So far this year I have sold six stories and failed utterly to sell two, despite submitting them all over the place. I guess it's entirely possible those two stories are DOA because I don't connect as well with their subject matter, I don't know, and as long as it remains the exception and not the rule it's whatever. Guess that is one of the luxuries of traditional publishing - you have somebody doing the QA so at least you don't embarrass yourself.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 12, 2019)

[sigh]
Scars, you gotta stop doing this...


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jun 13, 2019)

I think TGH brings up a great question that challenges something that I have taken at face value. 



Theglasshouse said:


> I still don't understand what is meant by write what you know and what it truly means. ... So unless I missing something it seems to be useless advice or misunderstood.



My first impression of the Atlantic article was that it resonated with how I teach riding. Sometimes I have to push the student to overexaggerate an action for a time so they can gain muscle, then gradually bring them in line with where they ought to be. (In other words, what I say might seem contradictory to what the new rider expects.) But after skimming my way down, I think he's being a bit literal in his philosophy of writing. 

Here's my two-cents. In a nut-shell, I write what I know in the guise of fiction. Not in the literal sense that the author of the article means, but in the metaphysical sense that it becomes an abstract representation of something I think or feel or believe or want to convey in real life. In other words, what it means is very important to me -- like Terry D said, it has to do with truth. 

Arthur Golden certainly did not write what he knew in the sense of becoming a Geisha. Rather, through diligent research, a desire to understand, and a great concept, he uncovered enough truth to tell us a good story that's believable and genuinely entertaining. He wrote what he knew in the sense of how he approached his work and the value he placed on the matter of truth in showing us his MC's development. 

The article brought up something I thought interesting, too. On the issue of writing out of one's emotional depth when one has had a relatively uneventful life (no childhood tragedies, no divorced parents, & so-on), Writer's digest addressed this a number of years back. I remember it was a very good article that made the point this is one of those myths in writing, that one needs to have been emotionally crippled somehow to be a good writer. Rather, I recall it strongly pushed for research, being true to your subject matter, and really trying to understand what lies beyond your own experiences. Once you begin to do these things, you do begin to know what you're writing about; it's inevitable.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jun 13, 2019)

Once upon a time there were three bears. I know about kids stories. 
The laser cut through the hull, spurting air and writhing bodies. I know about Sci Fi.
She traced a line down his lean, hard body with a salacious finger. I know how to write comedy.

I don't know much about police procedure, or westerns, or easterns but I'm willing to have a stab.

Gritty realism, set in a geographical area I know. 

Write what I know? Not always.


----------



## Underd0g (Jun 13, 2019)

bazz cargo said:


> Once upon a time there were three bears. I know about kids stories.
> The laser cut through the hull, spurting air and writhing bodies. I know about Sci Fi.
> She traced a line down his lean, hard body with a salacious finger. I know how to write comedy.
> 
> ...



I've called Bingo so I know what it's like to be berated by seniors for saying, "Zero-70" instead of, "O-70" and, "B-infinity" instead of, "B-8".

I know what it's like to watch the following interaction: My wife says, "I'm full". My old fashioned father corrects her and says, "You mean you're satisfied". Without missing a beat she says, "I was satisfied ten minutes ago, now I'm full."                                                                        

I know what it's like to hear my wife, who has dementia, ask if she's eaten. I tell her that she had an egg and sausage taco and cantaloupe for breakfast. She replies, "That sounds like something I enjoyed". But I can't share with her how dark her humor can be.

I know exactly how people would react if I conference called them together without them knowing, and be able to listen in.

I know what it's like to go in to a Family Dollar and ask an employee, "Why can't I find the light bulbs?", have the employee say, "They're two aisles over on the left past the brooms.", and have the presence of mind to say, "Not what I asked little Missy, not what I asked." 

I know what it's like to use a wired mouse because I don't want to buy batteries yet.

Yes, you guessed it, I know what it's like to grow old.

But my point is, we are filled with anecdotes that can be distorted into interesting fiction. Our real lives have unique interactions to spice up any story.


----------



## MichelD (Jun 14, 2019)

I set my stories on the west coast of Canada where  I grew up and people them with loggers,fishermen, boat bums and others who are the people  I lived and worked with all my life.

I recall real people and real stories and sometimes a little of that falls into my fiction and of course much of it appears in my non-fiction.

I know nothing about other worlds, fairies or the future and I certainly do not want to re-invent Tolkein's writing as many are wont to do these days.  I don't criticize it, I just find that it is not for me.

My world is rich with rugged scenery, colourful people and many many stories to be told, both true and imagined. In addition, it is far enough away from the world many of you inhabit to the point that it may even be considered exotic. I don't have to make that up.


----------



## C P Sennett (Jun 17, 2019)

I think I tend to write about stuff I know about.  It makes research easier and quicker.

I think this is also you know about things you are interested in.  So, I for me - that is more the point.

I am into martial arts, fantasy stuff, sci fi etc and supernatural things - so I write about these.  I'm not one for writing and period romances any time soon.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 17, 2019)

As I have only ever bought one book on writing I have to resort to quoting from that. In her book _The No Rules Handbook for Writers_ (Well, what other book would you expect me to buy?) the first rule that Lisa Goldman tackles is "Write what you know," and she offers as an alternative "Write to discover what you don't know yet." Her argument is that by researching an unfamiliar subject one is more likely to approach it from a novel perspective and come up with an original book. That probably can work. For example, the paraplegic who decides to learn to ski will have a far more interesting story to tell as a result than the regular skiing professional, who will more likely bore his readers to tears with admittedly accurate details. 

Of course I chose to mention this item from her book because it was clearly the inspiration for my own novel, which apparently made many references to future events and facts in my own life, quite literally things that I couldn't possibly have known yet. Okay, so I misunderstood what she meant, but I didn't read her book until six years after writing the novel and I'm not that clairvoyant. That's probably why the novel also referred to two minds connected across six years in time though. Actually she was probably writing her book at the same time that I was writing mine, but I didn't know that then. Confusing, isn't it?

I think a happy medium (No, not that sort of medium!) is possible somewhere in between. The paraplegic knows all about being paraplegic but nothing about skiing, so by amalgamating new experiences with old ones it is possible to come up with something both plausible and interesting. In my case my strangely prescient novel was basically about the perceptions of people working in an office, something that I did for the whole of my working life, and the more bizarre aspects were superimposed onto this mundane setting. 

I'm not sure how one gets experience to help with writing about the opposite sex though. It's one thing to walk a mile in another man's shoes, but I can't get very far in my angel's high heels even though we do both take the same shoe size.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 17, 2019)

*"Write what ye know, research the hell outta what you don't."*
Some guy I know says that.


----------



## ironpony (Jun 18, 2019)

I think that most people do not know a lot of things that would make for a really great story though, and they have to do some research for their ideas, or even make things up sometime.  I read that the novelist Scott Turow was a real lawyer before he became a writer.  However, in his book Presumed Innocent, he took artistic license and made some things up in the law, in order to have dramatic twists and turns, cause sticking to what he actually knew, would not have made for the most compelling story.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 18, 2019)

Clancy was such a nut about research that he had a research assistant; some guy named John Grisham.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 18, 2019)

Is it possible to write a novel without researching? Ralph are you arguing research is inspiring and why?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 19, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> Is it possible to write a novel without researching? Ralph are you arguing research is inspiring and why?



Is it possible to write without research? Yes. Is it a good idea? No. 

It's not an inspiration issue (although research can be inspiring, I guess) but a credibility/authenticity issue. 

Unless the story is some sort of memoir, trying to write a story without doing some form of adequate research is like walking into the ruins of Chernobyl in a bathing suit. Barring a miracle, you're screwed the moment you start.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 19, 2019)

It's all very well saying that to write what you know is good basic advice, but does that also mean writing it in the words that you know? I was about to post a different comment on this thread using the word "jinking" but from a little quick research I see that word-rot has set in and nowadays it has a plethora of meanings. Word-rot renders vocabulary useless as nobody can be sure what they are reading about. The principle behind language as a means of communication is that words retain stable meanings rather than new ones being assigned to them by irresponsible sectors of society for their own purposes. This isn't evolution of the language but rather its deterioration.

So, does writing what you know extend to using the words that you know with the meanings that you know or is doing that actually as hazardous as writing about a subject that you don't know? Is "jinking" a meaningful word any more or just a useless sequence of letters that conveys no clear meaning and how about the rest of our no doubt extensive vocabularies? It might seem to be a different subject from the OP but actually it isn't.


----------



## Underd0g (Jun 19, 2019)

JustRob said:


> It's all very well saying that to write what you know is good basic advice, but does that also mean writing it in the words that you know? I was about to post a different comment on this thread using the word "jinking" but from a little quick research I see that word-rot has set in and nowadays it has a plethora of meanings. Word-rot renders vocabulary useless as nobody can be sure what they are reading about. The principle behind language as a means of communication is that words retain stable meanings rather than new ones being assigned to them by irresponsible sectors of society for their own purposes. This isn't evolution of the language but rather its deterioration.
> 
> So, does writing what you know extend to using the words that you know with the meanings that you know or is doing that actually as hazardous as writing about a subject that you don't know? Is "jinking" a meaningful word any more or just a useless sequence of letters that conveys no clear meaning and how about the rest of our no doubt extensive vocabularies? It might seem to be a different subject from the OP but actually it isn't.



Could not help but remember Peter Falk telling Alan Arkin, "Serpentine, serpentine" in "The In-laws".
Wouldn't be the same if he yelled "Jink, jink!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9MU2oXzSL4


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jun 19, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Clancy was such a nut about research that he had a research assistant; some guy named John Grisham.



Is this meant to be a joke? I can't find any support for it on the internet. I did find a mention of tremendous research by Clancy for his first novel. Grisham was a lawyer, speaking of writing what you know.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 19, 2019)

EmmaSohan said:


> Is this meant to be a joke? I can't find any support for it on the internet. I did find a mention of tremendous research by Clancy for his first novel. Grisham was a lawyer, speaking of writing what you know.



Ahem. :roll:










I never said his assistant was THE John Grisham.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 19, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> Is it possible to write a novel without researching? Ralph are you arguing research is inspiring and why?





The closer you write to what you know, the less research needed, logically.
But you should never fear research.
I write with a browser window open because I am constantly checking everything...even stuff I think I know.



I find research inspiring because I find out things that I did not know. Often I am researching a geographical area for a post-apocalyptic story, and I discover something that can really improve the story. 
Imagine writing a story and discovering there is a dynamite factory in the middle of it all. Yeah, the possibilities.

A more recent book I am working on, I was researching and actually learned that my characters were doing something in a stupid and difficult way compared to how real astronauts would do it.
The discovery actually made my writing much easier.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 19, 2019)

I think I am discovering that the hard way because I need to buy research books to learn about settings. It's not easy to find material on the internet on what I look for.

I think what you said is to me correct. Right now I have pending to buy a few books when the time is right: books on housing architecture, a book on mazes' history, and a book on virginia city. All because I have no library nearby me that stocks books when I need them.

Poetry is important don't get me wrong. But character is setting when researched. I'll see what I can do. I need to be patient.

I also read somewhere you can sometimes discover conflicts by researching such as finding apes somewhere off in Africa which are dangerous. But this is an everyday occurrence for them.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 19, 2019)

I am absolutely paranoid about fact checking.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 19, 2019)

Visiting a place is difficult, so niche books can be the cheapest option to know what you don't know. I may have lived for a good while in virginia, but its difficult to describe. Nonfiction is useful for a very good reason.


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 19, 2019)

IMO, "Write what you know" is one of those adages that's given to beginning writers, just so they don't feel overwhelmed by indecision. I imagine a creative writing instructor saying to his class, "Know a lot about hockey? Write a story with hockey in it!"

I don't think the advice is meant deep or nuanced (though I do like the "write what you know _emotionally_" interpretation). I also don't think that one _needs_ to write what they know. You can choose something that you know very little about, and still write the hell out of it. See: anyone who writes Fantasy, for example. :encouragement:


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jun 19, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> Right now I have pending to buy a few books when the time is right: books on housing architecture, a book on mazes' history, and a book on virginia city. All because I have no library nearby me that stocks books when I need them.



I hear a Road Trip!

A visit to General Grant's house became 'real' to me in a way I can't articulate when I set my hand on the railing going down the narrow stairs in his home. Virginia City became much more interesting when I began talking to the people who lived and worked there. 

If you can, try to go to some of the places that interest you. There's nothing like first-hand experience in researching what you want to write. 

And if you can't travel yourself right now, have you tried Google Earth? It is waaay cool for getting to see how people live in far away places. I even 'went' snorkeling in the Pacific--something I'd never try in real life. (Sure, it's not the same as really going snorkeling, but the blurbs people leave are still a really neat way to live vicariously through their experiences.)


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 20, 2019)

While I am not sure if I once went to such a house. I've been to mount Vernon. A place called Frederickville with a preserved town of when it was colonial times in the united states. So I know of the governors mansion superficially but been there.  
However for writing I cam across some new resources and thought they'd be just as useful: digital libraries. 
There's also project Gutenberg.
There is https://archive.org too borrow books or they let you download them for free. They are both free, and enhance description by using the knowledge in the non-fiction books. I thought about it today after looking at books that give examples of what classrooms use in schools.
I found one book on mazes on there. Now I can try to look up Virginia city I think. I don't usually read from project gutenberg, but I will now since I want to find out more about settings.
I read that travelogues are also a good source of information for places you have never been to.

Ok, I'll try google earth. Thank you for the suggestion. I used to live in virginia. I wish I could travel to some places but that requires a job. But that's a part of my past. I don't live there any longer. So I am passing along these "helpful" tips to researchers such as people who write stories such as novels. That is because setting is a important part of setting the scene (pun intended).


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jun 20, 2019)

Theglasshouse said:


> However for writing I cam across some new resources and thought they'd be just as useful: digital libraries.



I love digital libraries! 

Just beware, sometimes they change URL addresses on books. This can be a real bear if you want to go back to something you've read previously & it's not there. 

I had one of my sources for my thesis vanish altogether. Thankfully, I had forgotten I had a downloaded copy & was relieved when I found it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 20, 2019)

Google Earth is definitely _da bomb_ for researching a city. Things pop out when you are looking down at a city, things that you may not have noticed if you just went through wikepedia or google.
Sometimes when I am researching a city or region, I feel a little like Military Intelligence, analyzing footage from spy satellites or U2 footage.
The way that other people like crosswords, I like to figure out what that odd building on mainstreet is, just by examining the area around it. 
I have made some story-altering finds with googleearth. Just found things that were soooo cool that I had to write them into the story.


----------

