HOME | DD
TheBrassGlass β Write What You Know: A Guide
Published: 2010-10-19 04:03:35 +0000 UTC; Views: 2495; Favourites: 58; Downloads: 34
Redirect to original
Description
Write What You KnowNever were four little words so widely misconstrued. They are so unpopular these days, and are met with contrariness and frustration whenever they are invoked. Yet this phrase, more than any other, can be an author's greatest guidance. Here I will interpret this saying in two different ways and clarify the intention behind it.
When struggling writers hear this "write what you know" comment, their first impression might be that they should only write about themselves: their own pasts, families, struggles, time periods, etc. This is not necessarily the case! There are two useful interpretations: (1) write what you've come to know through the experience of life, and (2) know as much as possible about what you are writing.
Write What You've Come to Know through Life Experiences
Recently, I read an article in Writer's magazine on researching for the purpose of writing. Its author stated, "That old dictum write what you know is, in the espionage-thriller genre, at least, a fallacy."[sic] He then proceeded to contradict that statement. Points he made included "no amount of research can make up for personal experience." If you've personally experienced something, then you must know at least a bit about it, right?
There is a plethora of ways to know things. Say you are writing a story about office subculture. You may base what you're writing, how you're handling the material, on the complaints your parents shared about workdays over a lifetime of dinner-table conversations. Maybe you're writing about World War II; the stories your grandfather and great-uncle used to tell you might influence your work. You may have been employed as a waiter for one summer while you were going to college; some of your supporting characters might be loosely based on the people you served tables with. If you took a psychology course, you might draw on what you learned to strengthen a character's mental state. You might know somebody who knows somebody who works in an aluminum plant; maybe you heard an anecdote or two about it and were inspired to write a poem. Your writing professor may have assigned you an exercise where you chose a newspaper article and wrote a play about it.
The point of all these examples is to demonstrate that you know much more than you may think. All of these experiences---whether first hand, second hand, or third hand---are part of your knowledge informed by ordinary, everyday life. It is your greatest pool of resources from which you may draw, whenever you sit down to paper or computer screen.
Know as Much as Possible about What You Are Writing
Let's go back to that Writer's magazine quote for a moment: "That old dictum write what you know is, in the espionage-thriller genre, at least, a fallacy." That article, as I'd mentioned earlier, was all about researching for writing. If you are researching something, you are getting to know it. If that statement was made tongue-in-cheek, it didn't seem so from the context. It only succeeded in knocking all credibility out from under its author.
If you want to write about the French Revolution, you may think, "There's no way for me to experience it first hand." That may be true, but you can experience it second or third hand through research. There are first-hand accounts from the time period that still survive, which are available to you at a library or on the internet. There are also plenty of well-researched books, journal and magazine articles, and all sorts of other resources to be found on the subject. There is no excuse for trying to write about it without knowing much about it first. In the same way, there is no substitute for good research. Charles Dickens spent years writing his Tale of Two Cities. It was meticulously researched and is successful because of the work and care its author put into its extensive and accurate details.
"However," someone may say, "what about work that cannot be researched? What about fantasy worlds and sci-fi futures that can't or don't exist?" It may seem surprising, but the phrase "write what you know" still holds true, even in these instances; especially in light of this second interpretation.
Let us turn to one of the fathers of fantasy literature: J.R.R. Tolkien.
"Probably every writer making a secondary world, a fantasy, every sub-creator, wishes in some measure to be a real maker, or hopes that he is drawing on reality: hopes that the peculiar quality of this secondary world (if not all the details) are derived from Reality, or are flowing into it. If he indeed achieves a quality that can fairly be described by the dictionary definition: 'inner consistency of reality,' it is difficult to conceive how this can be, if the work does not in some way partake of reality. The peculiar quality of 'joy' in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a 'consolation' for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction, and an answer to that question, 'Is it true?' The answer to this question that I gave at first was (quite rightly): 'If you have built your little world well, yes: it is true in that world.' That is enough for the artist (or the artist part of the artist)." ["On Fairy-Stories" (an essay), A Tolkien Miscellany]
Tolkien's strengths were in his extensive records of his created world, his close attention to detail, and the copious amounts of time he spent thinking about his stories and characters. In short: he knew more about Middle Earth than anyone else. He knew its languages, its histories, its mythologies, its cultures, and so forth; enough so that he could create encyclopedias of information about a fictional world! And he did research; he read the histories of the British Isles and Scandinavia, Norse mythologies, and many fairy tales before setting out to create his fantasy novels.
Thus, when someone says, "write what you know," it means you must devote a lot of time to rounding out your world, your characters, all of your material. Even if the material does not necessarily come from real life, it should read as if it does through consistency, and breadth and depth of knowledge. You should know as much about it as possible, even if you don't intend to bring all of the details into the story.
Write What You Know, Know What You Write
Good, strong writing is well informed. It may have origins in your real-life experiences, in the experiences of others that you know, in books you've read, etcetera. So long as it is a credible source, it may be anything, come from anywhere; this is the nature of inspiration. It is your obligation as the writer to act upon that spark, to work and research and seek. If you get to know your material---whatever it may be---you and your work will benefit. Your readers will learn and believe what you write, and you shall achieve that revered, all-too-important credibility as an author.
----- ----- -----
Related content
Comments: 25
For fantasy, J.R.R. Tolkein is the best example :}
for science fiction, George Lucas is the best example I can think of. Lucas and his Star Wars universe (also known as Vordarian Galaxy) inspired me to create my own universe. Its a long and arduous process, filling such an enormous hole with life, but well worth it :}
I'll definitely be passing on information such as this to other writer friends!
π: 0 β©: 0
this is probably the best way i've ever seen that phrase explained.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for writing this; it's enlightening and reassuring at the same time. I've been told this many times before, and I agree that in no way should writing about what you "know" be limiting.
π: 0 β©: 0
And yet, when Tolkien was asked if he had written it so that elves were reincarnated, he was forced to answer sheepishly,"yes." If an author has a well-versed fandom in this age, it's likely they'll know the world's details better than the author.
I'm not disputing reading and researching. But the phrase is still honestly, bunkum. More damaging than useful. One of many hurdles aspiring writers put in front of themselves that destroy their confidence in their ability to create a well-crafted story.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with you so whole-heartedly I can barely express it. I can only put a 
π: 0 β©: 0
This is great! I know when I first heard this bit of advice years ago, I was a bit stumped. I didn't know anything--and I thought that meant I'd have to research all the time. This is a nice, succinct way to explain it.
And read, read, read is never bad advice.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your wonderful literary work has been chosen to be featured by DLD (Daily Literature Deviations) in a news article that can be found here [link]
Be sure to check out the other artists featured and show your support by
Keep writing and keep creating.
π: 0 β©: 1
if only they taught us this stuff in grade school...
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm constantly being told this in my writing classes, and this guide has put it all into a nice perspective for me. This was very well written and your points were made clearly and supported. Thanks for this, I think it'll be a helpful guide for any writer, no matter what stage they're at in the process.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd love to hear you elaborate on how.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can tell when a waterscape has been taken by someone who knows and loves the water, or architecture, or trees, or whatever. There needs to be some passion involved, whether love or disgust, to capture the essence of the matter.
π: 0 β©: 0
A nice guide. I agree. I hate the phrase, partly because it is so ambiguous about what "what you know" actually is, and most people who use it throw it out without explaining what they mean by "what you know". Besides which, the safest way to interpret it (as you mention) as semi-autobiography is unbelievably limiting and obviously doesn't apply to most successful writers. Used like this it's a license for laziness (freeing you from the effort of researching, or thinking through your fantasy world properly) and gratuitous self-indulgence that, probably, no one else will want to read.
π: 0 β©: 0
Although you're criticizing an article-writer in Writer, I'm going to quote and support your argument with one 
'Write what you know' is, as Le Guin rightfully points out, a silly thing to say: how are you supposed to know what you know without first writing it? "Writing itself, writing fiction or poetry, is a learning device--a means of knowledge, self-knowledge, knowledge of life". Nothing could be truer. What we must do is observe and collect what knowledge we have, and then use our imagination to create something true:
"If fiction is to be truthful about what human beings really are and do, we have to define knowledge as a goal of the imagination. After all, when I go down to the library and find out about doing the laundry in Borneo or in 1877, I'm not learning through experience, but through the imagination: I read, and re-create the reality in my mind till I know it. That's what writing, fact or fiction, is for. What I "know" comes to me maybe from experience, maybe from hearsay, maybe from books or other arts. What matters is what I make of it--what I do with it. "
Exactly as you say in your text. The thing is, of course, that this isn't enough: which is another reason why 'Write What You Know' is a silly thing to say. So I wrote a story about that one time this incredible thing happened to me, but then a reader comes and says "I don't believe you". Then what?
"That is the trick hidden in 'write what you know.' Knowing isn't enough. Your job as a writer is to 'make it true.' You make it seem true (so that the reader won't question it), and also find out the truth of it (so that telling it matters)."
Once again, this is what you say in your example of Tolkien: his attention to detail makes it true in the context of Middle Earth, where dragons roam and rings make you invisible. But at the same time, there's an underlying truth to his fiction, it tells us something about ourselves, about our desires and about our fears.
But even this is not quite enough. Although it's clichΓ©, I'm going to have to return to Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief", which by himself was defined as:
"that my endeavours should be directed to persons and characters supernatural, or at least romantic; yet so as to transfer from our inward nature a human Interest and a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith." (from Biographical Sketches of My Life and Opinions, 1817)
In other words, without the willing participation of the reader, it doesn't matter how truthful or fantastic the things you write are. I think -this- is the centre of why people are told to WWYK: then at least you can ashamedly and defensively tack a "this novel is semi-autobiographical" to the back cover in an attempt to make the reader take pity on you and believe what you're saying. This is why I like Paul Auster: at least he generally makes it damned clear whenever the author is entering into the story by simply placing himself there, fair and square
Anyway, enough babbling. Good article!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm glad you responded to this with others' views that I didn't necessarily know the origins of. I have very little to say for LeGuin. "How are you supposed to know what you know without first writing it?" That presupposes that you can't know anything without writing about it first. (Do you remember when you helped me with some German phrases in a historical fiction once? I didn't magically learn German by trying to write it; I learned from you. And I should have made sure I had those phrases right before publishing it to the web. It made me look very foolish that I hadn't bothered to do that.) It seems like LeGuin was trying to be contrary, trying to push readers to look at the issue from another angle; unfortunately, writers do use it as an excuse to be lazy. The only palpable way I can read her stance is that she expects writers to go through many drafts, edits, and revisions (possibly rewrites as well), in order to learn more about how they are approaching their subject matter. Hopefully no one will take up her battle cry as a reason for maintaining their own ignorance. D: The rest, I think, and as you said, agrees with precisely what Tolkien was saying. It is not to be interpreted that writers are creating truths, but rather taking truths they know in the real world and presenting them in a believable way to the reader.
There's much to be said about the whole "but this is exactly what happened to me!" argument. I frankly don't buy it, and never will. "Truth is stranger than fiction" is the adage people often bring up here. If it's not believable in the work, then it doesn't matter if it actually happened. The reader is not going to believe it, as you said. That's why the "believability" is so important---the writer is trying to build credibility with their craft.
The willing suspension of disbelief is something writing students everywhere like to invoke. Unfortunately, more often than not, it is also an excuse to be lazy; people tend to rely too heavily on it. You can usually tell when reading a piece of well-researched and very thought-out literature, and when you are not. Willing suspension of disbelief is not going to make an inconsistent story good. Personally, I don't believe in tacking "semi-autobiographical" onto anything; I assume everything a person writes is semi-autobiographical to begin with because it originates in that particular person's perspective of the world. It should not be a scapegoat or excuse for anything.
I don't know who Paul Auster is. What would you recommend I read by him? What sorts of things inform his writing? I am very intrigued here!
Again, thanks for replying and feel free to elaborate again. 
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all: go pick up the New York Trilogy by Auster and read it. I'm somewhat flummoxed you've never heard of Auster, considering he's, well, pretty big. But oh well
Aaanyway. I think you misunderstood LeGuin. All she's saying is that writing is a quest for self-knowledge, and that we through our writing discover something new about ourselves - and hopefully share that with the world at large. It was a pretty sentiment, not a cold hard piece of practical writing advice!
"Believability" and "suspension of disbelief" are, in my opinion, interchangeable. It doesn't matter how well crafted Tolkien's world is if someone who abhors fantasy reads it: "What's this? Hobbits? Wizards? Pipeweed? This is ridiculous, I'm not reading one more word!". Often when I've read something supposedly 'realistic' (say, Saramago's Blindness - although I know the premise is fantastic, the style is realistic) I still sometimes feel that 'no, no, this is ridiculous - why would they act like that?'. This is not a fault in the author's consistency or a lack of craft on their side: this is ME breaking a pact with the author to "believe".
Consider just about any long-running TV series (say, Lost). Some go along with the premise season after season, trying to find a pattern. Others give up long before that, declaring the whole thing a steaming pile of turd. Who's right? Probably neither side, or both.
I suppose what you're going for is some kind of objective sense of "this is internally consistent, well-written, realistic literature" whereas something else is...well...less so. In this, we shall have to differ. I've read too much stuff that's way out in the left field (you'll get to experience a bit of that with Auster) to be surprisedby much anything I find in a novel. Postmodernism teaches us that language is artifice, an arbitrary set of signs with no connection to reality. It teaches us there are no truths in fiction, that history is beyond our reach, and that everything can be (and must be) made into a pastiche.
So yeah.
π: 0 β©: 2
like magic realist writers Marquez and Nabokov*
π: 0 β©: 0
I misunderstood everything in your first comment. XD Sorry about that. There's not even an explanation that could possibly account for it. XD *embarrassed* My apologies.
Believability and suspension of disbelief are related, but not necessarily interchangeable. The believability is what persuades a reader to suspend disbelief. At some point, it's just too much or too little for some people to be persuaded. I don't mean heavy postmodern stuff because good postmodern writers, like magic realist writers like Marquez and Nabokov, can present the unbelievable in such a probable way that it demands suspension of disbelief, almost through sheer matter-of-fact tone. I want to know the magic in their ability to do so.
Part of it seems to be their intentionality---as you say, "there are no truths in fiction, that history is beyond our reach, and that everything can be (and must be) made into pastiche." There's still an inner consistency with their work, though. For you, it may not work (as with Saramago); that's ok. You are showing that there will always be that little window of personal preference in each person where the suspension of disbelief will or won't work in spite of everything. Places where it fails for me can be exemplified in poorly written fantasy, for instance. The example I love to use is fantasy where the setting and technology are accurate to the middle ages, but then the language uses late 20th century colloquialisms that break the illusion. I'm just arguing that writers shouldn't use "suspension of disbelief" as an excuse to not even try to make their work believable, leaning on it like a crutch. I don't believe the postmodern writers do that; at least, not the good ones. There's definitely more at work there. This article was not meant to address that, however. This is a much more basic, much simpler approach. The other would be nice for a discussion in the forums or possibly in another article.
I'd like to hear what you have to say about postmodernism sometime. Maybe in a note? You seem to be very well read. Thanks for the LeGuin quote. And the thought-out comments, too.
π: 0 β©: 1
Postmodernism? I could write you a thesis about that
Glad we found ourselves on the same page though, and congratulations for your DLD!
π: 0 β©: 1
Hahaha, yeah, the DLD is what made me reread the comments and go, "Oh my god, I never apologized for that stupidity!" XD Sorry about that. It's something I meant to do a long time ago.
Passe? You really think so? D: It's so all-encompassing, will we ever know when we're into something else? 
π: 0 β©: 0
i can see "WWYK" as a piece of advice for new writers who might not know where to start, otherwise i totally agree with all of this. WWKY is also a good excuse to see the world and be a crazy nut and acquire fun experiences that can be processed into material. This is what i have to keep telling myself while I'm serving time in Vegas.
π: 0 β©: 0