On "Write only what you know"

[KeithD]

Saw on FB a Vincent Van Gogh quote that I thought was a good counter to the "write what you know" writing advice (although I agree with "write what you know" as long as it includes "expand through research what you know"):

"I am always doing what I cannot do yet in order to learn how to do it."

 

[EdEc]

Saw on FB a Vincent Van Goh quote that I thought was a good counter to the "write what you know" writing advice (although I agree with "write what you know" as long as it includes "expand through research what you know"):

"I am always doing what I cannot do yet in order to learn how to do it."

The thought that goes through the head of every student musician.

 

[KeithD]

It didn't bring him happiness.

It brought the world of art joy, though. We all know who he was (well, most of us), which is saying all that needs to be said.

 

[Handley_Page]

It didn't bring him happiness.

'ear 'ear

 

[whowrotethisshit]

It didn't bring him happiness.

Depression is not the same thing as sadness. It is not a lack of happiness. If we discount ways people go about art because they were depressed or committed suicide, we'd be devoid of a lot of talented, deeply kind, and useful people's advice.

 

[oggbashan]

It didn't bring him happiness.

Or sales.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I've always thought of "write what you know" as general advice along the same lines as "show don't tell". As in, it's good advice to start with, but just about begs to be transcended at some point.

Sure, it's better to describe what's going on in a scene, to make it more vivid. But sometimes you have to tell, either a person's internal monologue or a summary of a lot of events.
And sure, it's good to start out with a familiar subject, because the familiarity will tend to allow authenticity in the writing, and makes getting the details correct easier. Both of which would tend to improve the reader's experience. But sometimes you need to expand your horizons, or stretch what you're doing. Besides which, if people only ever wrote what they knew, in the strictest sense, there would never be any science fiction or mysteries. And what fun would that world be?

 

[oggbashan]

Write what you know or can research...

 

[KeithD]

Write what you know or can research...

Or can imagine in a coherent form?

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

Write what you know or can research...

I agree. Especially in the age of Google.

Or, otherwise, make up a fantasy world.

 

[Hypoxia]

My quibble point: "Write ONLY what you know" and "write what you know" ain't the same.

"What you know" implies "what you THINK you know." I think I know all sorts of shit, much of which is likely bogus. If I write ONLY that shit, I'm in trouble for sure. Might as be a presidential spox. Better to labor at research so my supposed knowledge isn't exposed as bullshit... unless bullshit is my goal.

A firm "personal knowledge" constraint precludes expansion, exploration, improvisation. Much of my fictioning is improv and extrapolation. (I think) I know something; I spew its possibilities out ad infinitum, ad absurdum for entertainment. That's far beyond "only what I know".

Write what you know. If you don't know enough, learn something, or fake it.

 

[KeithD]

Where I was trying establish the difference is that, in fiction, you jolly well can extend what you currently know, including after research, into the unknown for a story as long as it has some logic to back it up.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think it's good advice as long as you take it the right way. Just like, as BC points out "show don't tell."

I would suggest eliminating the word "only."

"Write what you know" shouldn't be a prohibition on writing about a subject about which you've had no personal experience. You shouldn't hesitate to write a story about race car drivers just because you've never been one. If that maxim had been scrupulously followed, much great literature would never have been written. Think of all the things Shakespeare wrote about that he didn't really know much about.

I think it's useful in two ways:

First, bring whatever you DO know into your writing. It will make it more authentic. If you're writing about hobbits, they'll seem more real and entertaining if you invest them with the qualities of people you have experienced in real life, and with whatever insights you have gained along the way.

Second, if you write about a subject with which you have no personal experience, make some effort to learn something about it. 98% of readers will be satisifed with a rough approximation of knowledge of a subject; they won't demand Ph.D. level knowledge. Some effort, not extreme effort, and certainly not true proficiency, is enough.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I think it's good advice as long as you take it the right way. Just like, as BC points out "show don't tell."

I would suggest eliminating the word "only."

"Write what you know" shouldn't be a prohibition on writing about a subject about which you've had no personal experience. You shouldn't hesitate to write a story about race car drivers just because you've never been one. If that maxim had been scrupulously followed, much great literature would never have been written. Think of all the things Shakespeare wrote about that he didn't really know much about.

I think it's useful in two ways:

First, bring whatever you DO know into your writing. It will make it more authentic. If you're writing about hobbits, they'll seem more real and entertaining if you invest them with the qualities of people you have experienced in real life, and with whatever insights you have gained along the way.

Second, if you write about a subject with which you have no personal experience, make some effort to learn something about it. 98% of readers will be satisifed with a rough approximation of knowledge of a subject; they won't demand Ph.D. level knowledge. Some effort, not extreme effort, and certainly not true proficiency, is enough.

Fully agreed.

To me, pointing out to this quote is like telling people to abandon all writing-rules; forget about punctuation, grammar, spelling, sentence structure, ... Are you sure you want to advocate this?

Perhaps we should say that such things should not be ignored without good reason? They exist to serve us, not the other way round. Using Van Gogh as our example, where would art be had he adhered strictly to ‘the rules’?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I know I have an active imagination, so I write about it.

I know nothing about astronauts and angels on Titan, I know nothing about mermaids because, hey, they don't exist, I know nothing about shape-shifting daemons because they don't exist either; but oddly enough, they're some of my most popular stories.

Write what you can imagine, on a foundation of what you know, works best, I reckon.

 

[SynSlave]

If this is a true quote of Vincent (I always treat internet-quotes with suspicion; quite often these are quotes people'd like to put in the mouths of famous people), then it must have been about techniques, and not about the topics he was painting. People at that time didn't appreciate his work because those were every-day scenes painted in unconventional styles. No-one was really interested in misshaped potato eaters.

To me, pointing out to this quote is like telling people to abandon all writing-rules; forget about punctuation, grammar, spelling, sentence structure, ... Are you sure you want to advocate this?

If that's what you took away from it then... wow.

Anyway, the infamous "write about what you know" bit has always been great for children and people who are stuck. Contemporary authors like Michael Chricton don't just research, they write about their research. His Eater's of the Dead (turned into another movie) took quite a bit of homework, and he shared his garnered knowledge to explore cultural relativity and anthropology through exploration in his fiction. The insides of how many jackets give credit to medical experts, scientists, historians, theologians, etc.?

If anyone only wants to write about what they know that's fine. If they cant broaden their horizons than that's a shame. And if anyone considers research and homework while writing "knowledge"... well then we're just discussing semantics and the phrase has little value aside the two groups I mentioned.

Imagine a world where fantasy writers only wrote about what they knew. Riding the coat tails of Tolkien is bad enough. What would we do if he didn't create the mold?

Our greatest fables date back to Greek myths that explore Gods and Goddesses teaching lessons by morphing into imaginary creatures tantilizing the GP with imagery; that captivated and terrified. Our greatest myths and legends werent born from writer's who studied the arts. There were no "arts" before them.

So I hope everyone writes about what they don't know at some point. Doing a little homework and relating along the way is certainly advisable. But don't limit yourself, I say. Take a chance and see if you learn something.

 

[KeithD]

If this is a true quote of Vincent (I always treat internet-quotes with suspicion; quite often these are quotes people'd like to put in the mouths of famous people),

Fair enough:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/26/learn/

“Quote Investigator: The earliest match known to QI appeared in a letter sent in 1885 to painter Anthon van Rappard from Vincent van Gogh who was immersed in the creation of the landmark canvas
'The Potato Eaters'.”

As far as technique rather than topic, that's no less applicable to writing, even if we want to assume what the artist meant but didn't specify. And, no, I don't see how you possibly could think that I was suggesting, by pointing to the quote, that I was advocating turning away from all writing standards. I have no idea why folks feel like they need to rush to such extremes of interpretation in their discussions--especially since I have long history on this board of upholding standards while advocating flexibility within those standards.

 

[UsuallyPresent]

I just follow my guru's mantra.

"I know nuzzink!" - Sgt Schultz

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

I agree. Especially in the age of Google.

Or, otherwise, make up a fantasy world.

Exactly

 

[Bramblethorn]

Imagine a world where fantasy writers only wrote about what they knew. Riding the coat tails of Tolkien is bad enough. What would we do if he didn't create the mold?

A lot of the strengths of LotR do come from what Tolkien knew, though - his background in linguistics and mythology, and the amount of time that he'd put into fleshing out his own world-building before anything hit publication. The weaknesses in his work tend to align with areas where he didn't have much life experience.

 

[RejectReality]

Beware the research rabbit hole, though.

I started watching some wood-turning videos researching a story idea, ( not even one word on paper yet ) just trying to pick up some terminology to give the setup some life, and ended up subscribed to 4 different wood turning channels.

Recommendations from those ended up dragging me down a restoration rabbit hole as well. Five more channels there, plus a few others when I see an interesting project pop up. Just got done watching a twenty minute video on the restoration of a Sixties Tonka fire truck. LOL

Once I do get those stories rolling, the main problem will be not putting too much of what I've picked up in there now.

It's a good thing I don't have a garage, because I'd probably have a wood lathe, sandblasting cabinet, and powder-coating system by now

 

[NotWise]

A lot of the strengths of LotR do come from what Tolkien knew, though - his background in linguistics and mythology, and the amount of time that he'd put into fleshing out his own world-building before anything hit publication. The weaknesses in his work tend to align with areas where he didn't have much life experience.

I think that is consistent with KeithD'd OP. Mythology and Linguistics were Tolkien's research. I don't think he learned Saxon dialects on his mama's knee, and the mythology was not something he lived. They were the subject of research.

You can write about things you've researched sufficiently, even if they fall outside the realm of personal experience.

You can write pure fantasy too, but then you need to get readers to buy into you fantasy world.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The weaknesses in his work tend to align with areas where he didn't have much life experience.

Like his women. Lots of macho men and dwarves, bucolic hobbits, but idealised and ethereal women.

 

[ColdAssIce]

Saw on FB a Vincent Van Gogh quote that I thought was a good counter to the "write what you know" writing advice (although I agree with "write what you know" as long as it includes "expand through research what you know"):

"I am always doing what I cannot do yet in order to learn how to do it."

I was responding to a bit of feedback on a story. In my response I almost wrote “If we cannot explore the unknown whilst giving readers a sense of familiarity, what’s the point of fiction?”

I thought it was corny, so I deleted that part.

I think that anyone with the mind for it can write just about anything in fiction efficiently. The recipe is emotion, detail, dialogue—and not to rely too heavily on the suspension of disbelief. I know that stories I’ve really enjoyed writing and reading have been less about knowing and more about feeling. One of my favorite author’s in the lesbian sex category is a man! He can’t possibly know what it’s like to be a woman loving another woman, but if I’d not known his gender, you’d find me hard pressed to believe a woman hadn’t written his works.

Writing what you know only ensures it’s your truth, someone else’s truth could be different, so go bananas!

 

[Bramblethorn]

One of my favorite author’s in the lesbian sex category is a man! He can’t possibly know what it’s like to be a woman loving another woman, but if I’d not known his gender, you’d find me hard pressed to believe a woman hadn’t written his works.

"Write what you know" doesn't mean the author has to have experienced everything first-hand.

Men are from Earth, women are from Earth, non-binary people too. Most men know plenty of women; a man who listens when those women talk about their lives, and makes a bit of an effort to understand the areas where women might experience the world differently, already knows enough to write female characters.

Writing a character from a different culture that I've never experienced, that's much more of a challenge than writing a different gender.