I notice it’s common to encourage writers to break out of “write what you know.” But I’ve found that my best writing is based on what I already know well. I think this is because: Constraints encourage creativity It gives an authenticity to it that I couldn’t give otherwise; for example, I’m from Northern California and my friend is from England (we’re in Texas), and no matter how much research we do, of the two of us, I would still be better at writing about Northern California, and she would still be better at writing about England. A reader would still know the difference. Time saved on research can be spent writing! Aside from looking up a few quick things, I mostly write what I know for these reasons. Does anyone else write this way?
I love research. I am just in the process of starting a new WIP - a novel about an archaeologist who rediscovers his humanity while studying the remains of a 100,000 year-old hunter-gatherer. I have a science background, so know a little about the history of Homo sapiens. But I have spent a good part of today reading an introductory text book into bioarcheology, and I am finding it fascinating. I don't like to keep on doing the same thing. Been there, done that. I like to experiment and branch out. In one of my recent short stories, I experimented with writing an unreliable narrator. Next short story, I'd like to try an allegory. I like to try new things and stretch my skills. There is so much to be discovered and I am up for the ride!
I think some people take Write what you know a little too literally. When NovelWritingHelp.org was still around it had a somewhat different take on it that I really like. Basically he said we've all experienced the full range of emotions and a broad range of situations. We can draw from that, even when writing about characters very different from ourselves. We know what it's like to be treated unfairly and get no sympathy from anyone, and we can take that experience and apply it to a character in such a situation, even if he's in an environment you know nothing about, or is a very different person from you. So, seen in this way, we all know a heck of a lot more than we think we do.
I do a fair mix of both. When I'm writing what I know, boy oh boy do the words flow out. It's beautiful. When I have to research, it slows down quite a bit, but it's necessary. Writing a scene in a city that you live in is awesome for getting down details that you'd have trouble just making up out of the blue. For my last big project, there was a lot of anthropology and history knowledge involved, which was great because that's what I studied. But I also had to research mycology, which I knew very little about. Writing what you know definitely makes things easier and makes your writing more genuine and believable, but it's hard to avoid research. Mixing it up is best.
I want to write a long pointless rant about how we don't even know what we think we know... which I could easily do, how to make long pointless rants is a thing I know very, write what you know. BUT I'll skip to the chase. When they say "write what you know" I think most people mean "Draw from your own experiences" To me that is more useful advice. While you can just write what is directly in front of you, it gives you a wealth of sensations and that no level of reading about in a book will ever give you. If you've only ever lived in a small town, and you write what you know your story options are limited to ONLY life in a small. But if you're drawing from your experiences, well you may have experienced heartbreak, using that experience you can tell a story about Prince experiencing heartbreak. If you ever had to run away from a wild animal, you could use that experience to tell a story about someone running away from a monster. If you ever took a school field trip to a different town where they have yellow fire hydrants instead of red, you could use that experience to tell a story about someone exploring an exotic and bizarre culture that is disturbing and exciting to them. Write what you know works for some people, but if taken too literally it is extremely limiting my 2 cents
I prefer the opposite: write what you don't know. I'm writing about a human civilization that is around a billion years old and how that might look. Sure, emotions are borrowed from my own life experiences. But the setting has to come from a huge amount of imagination.
Well... it depends. I have found that drawing from an experience can have a big impact on the reader, and I'm pretty sure that's because I have a good degree of confidence, which allows me to explore something without as much fear. Questions like, "hmmm, am I really right to say this?" don't come up. Research can solve that. You can find books and articles on various subjects like Physics to increase your confidence, but it doesn't work on everything. Highly internalized subjects like depression are difficult to research and get right unless you've experienced them yourself. In short, you gain knowledge from research, but not experience. And experience is just really important for certain topics you want to explore in your story. My rule of thumb is... emotions should come from me strictly. Knowledge can come from me, but also the Internet, or both.
Very true. You remind me of the thing Freud said, about how he figured out so much about psychology. His technique (part of it) was to think very deeply and honestly about his own internal experiences, and to also think about people he's known who have experienced the same thing. That way you get the view from inside and out. Of course, he also had the benefit of being a clinical psychiatrist, so he was able to deeply question people about what's going on inside their noggin. Plus he was very analytical and for the most part brutally honest with himself. Because he knew the techniques for getting information out of patients concerning their innermost experiences even when they were reluctant to talk about it, he was able to apply those same techniques to himself and get past many of his own internal blocks. He said people experiencing mental illness are just like everyone else, except that what they're experiencing is more intense and they're stuck in it. But we've all experienced more-or-less everything that every mentally ill person does, just to a lesser degree usually, and we're capable of getting over it pretty quickly. Another part of write what you know as espoused by the author of NovelWritingHelp is to think about conversations you've seen between people. Fights, arguments, etc. Or if you're writing about a man and his son playing catch in the yard, think about times when you've seen real people actually doing that or something very much like it, or when you've done it yourself, or at least think of a real yard you know well. It's so much better than just entirely inventing the scenario. As soon as you're thinking about actual people in the real world, you have a wealth of details to draw from that will feel authentic. But try to avoid drawing from movies or other books most of the time. A copy of a copy of something entirely invented in some second-rate author's head isn't going to be very good. That way lies plagiarism or cliche.
Very well said. This sentiment is reminiscent of points made on the art thread - that art is emotion transferred from the artist to the receiver of the art. That, in creating art, the artist shares feelings they have had.
I've heard of this too in the form of "Writers are natural people watchers." ...which is a bit creepy if you take it in the wrong context. It doesn't mean that writers go perch on top of some roof and watch the bypassers as "research". It just means that they're highly observational with how interactions go. The play you've mentioned is a type of interaction. There's a lot to learn from being a third-party observer. For things like arguments, not being involved will mean no bias, so you'll have a clearer view than those involved in the heat of things.
This is true and very fascinating. The idea that you can enshrine your emotions to works is very real. I'm not sure how it works but I've experienced it both as a reader and writer. I can often feel the emotions of the writer, and on the other hand, people seem to feel the emotions I put into my works. I know I keep bringing it up but my October entry with the runner is still something I think about. I didn't do that good of a job with it yet people still felt the emotions I left there, which is amazing to me. I know its true because a lot of the feedback I got mentioned it. Not everyone did though, perhaps because there is a relation there. Maybe there is an element of resonance there, perhaps that's how the "effect" works. This is also the very aspect I've seen AI-generated pieces fail. They can be impressive, but they also feel soulless. I've tried some art models like Midjourney and StarryAI but the things they make? There's just nothing there. Its empty. It merely looks cool.
In drawing there's a strong injunction to draw from life, and a lot of artists will carry a skectchbook and literally be a people watcher. But even if you don't do that, you will look intently at people and try to remember what you see. Artists frequently get beat up or arrested as pervs. And when you say "I'm an artist, I was observing people in their natural habitat!" for some reason nobody understands. This can happen even when other people aren't involved. I once took a drawing class that met at the zoo and we'd go to different animal enclosures each week and sketch the animals. Apparently the male gorillas really don't like being stared at, they take it as a sign of aggression. I had the biggest one in the pen charge straight at me full speed and smash himself against the wall of glass so hard it flexed outward and looked like it was going to break. Everybody in the place jumped and most let out something like a stifled scream or exclamation. The instructor chuckled and told us we shouldn't look them straight in the eyes. Clearly he enjoyed this part of the classes.
I remember that story and agree that what made it good is the emotion you put it into it, as with all your stories. IMO, that's what turns a wordsmith into a writer. Very much agree!
I personally don't have a problem if someone will do that with honest intentions. I think there's generally a lot of distrust nowadays in the modern world. You do something slightly out of the norm and people get immediately concerned. That's because some places in the world have high crime rates and people are just naturally on the lookout. I've been in small communities. On my home island, there is a small town literally named "Old Country". There's a high degree of trust there. People literally leave their keys on the FRONT doors and nothing happens. Its amazing. I wouldn't dream of doing that where I am now.
