Write what you know?

[sr71plt]

If you are writing fantasy that is based on known constructs such as Star Trek, Star Wars or Dr. Who, readers will be upset and angry if you make a mistake and confuse an Ewok with a Klingon. If you are going to write in those genres you need to KNOW the series initimately.

Yes, this is exactly why I think fan fiction sucks and is largely drivel.

 

[Handley_Page]

You should KNOW the world you have constructed. Otherwise the reader is unlikely to suspend disbelief.

I used to like E E Doc Smith but I became bored with his Lensman series because he kept inventing bigger and better weapons 'I've got a gun', 'I've got a bigger gun', 'I've got artillery' etc. The earlier novels were believable. The later ones stretched credibility too far.

I remember "This is Helmuth, speaking for Boskone" very well.
Still got a couple somewhere.
I got peeved when we had, after "a Lensman", a "Grey Lensman" (and Mama Clarissa was a "Red" one as I recall. It all got too much for beleif.

 

[harry8copeland]

So that leaves all of the science fiction and fantasy writers out?

Only serial killers can explore the theme of serial killing?

But once you included the "maybe imagination" phrase, your whole post went bust, I think.

Straw-man argument. That's not what I said at all. Like I said, that's what I read in a book once, it made sense to me.

How you decide you "know it" is up to you. That's why I said, maybe experience, maybe imagination, maybe research.

Experience isn't limited to direct experience, i.e. only serial killers may write about killing. I have never killed anyone, but I have been angry enough that I wanted to kill someone. So if I used that anger in my writing, it was be experienced based.

Stephen King employs researchers to help him write his novels. Do you really think those researchers find incontrovertible evidence of ghosts? Of course not. What they find is details that give make his stories believable (even though deep down you know they're made up).

So, in conclusion, do not write what you do not know. Or I will kill you (and then write about it).

 

[sr71plt]

How you decide you "know it" is up to you. That's why I said, maybe experience, maybe imagination, maybe research.

That's fine. I've decided what "know it" means to me and that, of course, is the basis of what I'm posting to the thread. Results may vary on individual perspective.

 

[blulilacgrl]

Do you need to know what you write about? No. You can write whatever you want to write.

But if you want to be credible then you need to know what you are writing about.

Don't write a military novel if you can't even name the different ranks. Don't write a Science based novel if you don't understand the basics of it. Don't write a book about a trial if you don't understand the legal system.

The axiom "write what you know" is not about whether you should write or not. It is to prevent someone from writing about a subject they are ignorant of and looking like an idiot. You don't have to be an expert but you at least need to know the points you are writing about. Or you need to hire yourself a really good researcher.

Good luck!

 

[sr71plt]

Or you need to hire yourself a really good researcher.

Because you can't do the research yourself?

 

[blulilacgrl]

Because you can't do the research yourself?

Oh I can. I don't have a problem with research. But there are some who can't or would rather pay others to do it for them.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh I can. I don't have a problem with research. But there are some who can't or would rather pay others to do it for them.

You're right there. There was a mention up the line of researchers for Stephen King (I think). That resonates. I was a researcher for James Michener. And appropriate to this thread, anyone who thinks you have to know your subject or not write about it needs to go and look at the breadth and depth of what Michener wrote.

 

[blulilacgrl]

You're right there. There was a mention up the line of researchers for Stephen King (I think). That resonates. I was a researcher for James Michener. And appropriate to this thread, anyone who thinks you have to know your subject or not write about it needs to go and look at the breadth and depth of what Michener wrote.

What are you talking about? Michener was known for his extensive research and attention to detail. His Pulitzer Prize novel came about because of notes he took while stationed in the South Pacific during the War.

He is the poster child for write what you know! Michener would never have written about something that he had not thoroughly researched and had an understanding of.

 

[sr71plt]

Excuse me. Go take another look at his book list. Tales of South Pacific was early days. The bulk of his work was from stories pulled together in locations ALL OVER THE WORLD AND OUT INTO SPACE AND BACK IN TIME by his researchers (which included me on Centennial and Chesapeake). Anyone who covered that territory and ferreted out the local lore vignettes he wove his books around all by himself--or "knew" about them before doing the research--wouldn't have had any frigging time to sleep, let alone write.

What he's the poster child of is in deciding what next he didn't know about to write on and sending his researchers out there to pick up the juicy local lore and lay of the land back through history--which he then wrote into a terrific manuscript (usually too long, though, and needing to be chopped or made into two, as was done with Alaska and Journey). The man was an orphan from Bucks County, PA. Did you think that The Source or Caravans sprang up out of what he "knew"?

But I guess he had you fooled, huh?

And what does getting a Pulitzer Prize have anything to do with it? JFK got one for Profiles in Courage, and he didn't either research or write a word of it.

 

[sr71plt]

"After suffering a serious heart attack in 1964, Michener eased his workload by employing a team of researchers."

Alfred and Emily Glossbrenner, About the Authors, 2000, page 164.

Go count the number of Michener novels published after 1964.

 

[blulilacgrl]

Excuse me. Go take another look at his book list. Tales of South Pacific was early days. The bulk of his work was from stories pulled together in locations ALL OVER THE WORLD AND OUT INTO SPACE by his researchers (which included me on Centennial and Chesapeake). Anyone who covered that territory and ferreted out the local lore vignettes he wove his books around all by himself--or "knew" about them before doing the research--wouldn't have had any frigging time to sleep, let alone write.

What he's the poster child of is in deciding what next he didn't know about to write on and sending his researchers out there to pick up the juicy local lore and lay of the land back through history--which he then wrote into a terrific manuscript (usually too long, though, and needing to be chopped or made into two, as was done with Alaska and Journey). The man was an orphan from Bucks County, PA. Did you think that The Source or Caravans sprang up out of what he "knew"?

And what does getting a Pulitzer Prize have anything to do with it? JFK got one for Profiles in Courage, and he didn't either research or write a word of it.

No offense. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

As I stated earlier the whole idea of write what you know is that you should KNOW what you are writing about. Either through first hand knowledge or by research. So what you are saying is in fact supporting my contention.

He may not have done the research himself but he (according to you) hired you to do it for him. Again supporting the adage write what you know. Perhaps we should amend the axiom to state 'know what you are writing about or risk looking like an idiot'

Centennial though fictional was at least (if I understand) geologically based in Colorado. So Michener would have looked like a real ass to write about "Centennial, CO" as a seaside resort town. But he doesn't. Why? Because he did some research on the geographic and geological conditions (I'm sorry~ HE didn't, he paid someone else to do it)

And if you helped him on Chespeake then I am sure that you understand the need to research the Eastern Maryland shore. Again acquiring information so that the author doesn't look stupid when writing about a specific locale.

 

[sr71plt]

Changing the subject now, are we? What I reacted to was you saying he did all of his research ("What are you talking about? Michener was known for his extensive research")--and then jumping on me when I said he had researchers. Now you're backtracking from that. I would too, if, in a challenge on the forum, I wasn't "writing what I knew."

Let's just drop it. You slammed me for something you knew nothing about and didn't bother to research.

Yep, Centennial was set in Colorado. You betcha. It was set (although the book locale was moved across the Rockies from the valley he was writing about) and partially written at my family's ranch, with my grandmother doing his typing.

So, guess what, here I'm writing what I know. Who would have thumpked it?

 

[blulilacgrl]

Changing the subject now, are we? What I reacted to was you saying he did all of his research--and then jumping on me when I said he had researchers. Now you're backtracking from that. I would too, if, in a challenge on the forum, I wasn't "writing what I knew."

Let's just drop it. You slammed me for something you knew nothing about and didn't bother to research.

Yep, Centennial was set in Colorado. You betcha. It was set (although the book locale was moved across the Rockies from the valley he was writing about) and partially written at my family's ranch, with my grandmother doing his typing.

So, guess what, here I'm writing what I know. Who would have thumpked it?

What are you talking about? I didn't "slam you" for the idea that Michener employed researchers? Where did I say that? I said the Michener was known for his extensive research. No where in that statement did I say HE did it that he PAID someone else to do it for him. I in fact don't have a problem with authors paying researchers. Hello. I was the one who introduced the concept in this thread!

What I was (if you can call it this) "slamming you" for was the notion that one can research (or hire researchers) and then write in ignorance.

 

[sr71plt]

You're hilarious. Thanks for the laugh before I close out for the night.

 

[blulilacgrl]

You're hilarious. Thanks for the laugh before I close out for the night.

And you are migraine inducing. But thank you for the now necessary glass of wine while I ponder the absolute illogical leaps your mind takes.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll leave you with the question of just how does this statement:

What are you talking about? Michener was known for his extensive research and attention to detail. His Pulitzer Prize novel came about because of notes he took while stationed in the South Pacific during the War.

He is the poster child for write what you know! Michener would never have written about something that he had not thoroughly researched and had an understanding of.

suddenly come to you meaning he hired people to do his research for him (which I've evidence that he did)?

We can't even see where you moved the goal posts on that attempt at a slight of hand.

The thread point is that he didn't just sit down and write inside the box of the world he then knew. He decided to write about new things--things he didn't already know about--an amazing and exhausting breadth of new things--and then set out to do that. It wasn't from the basis of what he knew at the beginning. The research is part of the getting it written--and, yes, purists have dinged him for not doing all of his own research. (And I can verify that he didn't stay within the box of the research he was handed either--he went off in flights of fancy. He was writing fiction. He moved a whole valley across the Rockies, for instance. He pulled stories out of an earlier century in Chesapeake and put historical figures there who had never been south of Boston.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

(This was written to the post above Ogg's)

Well, no. You can make it all up to suit yourself. That's what others did before you to establish what they want to be "rules" of the genre. The Romance people got away with this "it's gotta be this way" for a while, and I've seen a thread here trying to say there are rules you have to follow for BDSM (and I've seen some on vampires too), but a writer doesn't have to be bound by someone else's genre rules if she/he doesn't want to. That's how fresh themes open up in the market--by busting through the paradigm of someone else's rules about what a genre is.

I think this is an appropriate discussion point in being trapped in the so-called "write what you know" "axiom."

Anybody can write anything they want to, and break all the rules they like. Sometimes it succeeds. But IMHO the ones that do succeed are usually the ones who knew the rules and had a good reason for breaking them. When authors who break the rules by accident or laziness it just looks sloppy.

 

[sr71plt]

Anybody can write anything they want to, and break all the rules they like. Sometimes it succeeds. But IMHO the ones that do succeed are usually the ones who knew the rules and had a good reason for breaking them. When authors who break the rules by accident or laziness it just looks sloppy.

Well, true. And that's probably why beginning writers are urged to stay within the box. But, going back to the original question. "Write what you know" is being put out there as an axiom in advanced writing seminars too, not just in freshmen creative writing classes--without a lot of discussion on what that means. At least on this thread, we're trying to give some meaning to the "what you know" term. It seems to me that it's coming down not to staying in the bounds of what you know without looking beyond the box you're in, but what you know after researching the background that needs to be researched on themes/topics/locales that make you stretch your knowledge and exploration.

 

[blulilacgrl]

I'll leave you with the question of just how does this statement:

What are you talking about? Michener was known for his extensive research and attention to detail. His Pulitzer Prize novel came about because of notes he took while stationed in the South Pacific during the War.

He is the poster child for write what you know! Michener would never have written about something that he had not thoroughly researched and had an understanding of.

suddenly come to you meaning he hired people to do his research for him?

We can't even see where you moved the goal posts on that attempt at a slight of hand.

Because research is research. Research is quite simply the gathering of information whether by your hand or by another person. He acquired the knowledge. His first book was based upon his personal and first hand experience and according to you (which I will grant you and am not arguing) later works he hired people to do the research and bring the information back to him. In both cases, research was done before he wrote. I'm not sure I see the problem. I stated in previous posts that authors do hire researchers, it is a standard and acceptable practice. Why would I have a problem with that?

My point is I don't care how one gathers the information, only that an author should know what he is writing about. I am genuinely stumped as to what we are arguing about.

 

[sr71plt]

(which I will grant you and am not arguing)

That's exactly what you argued--and rather challengingly and dismissively. Sorry, babe, I saw where you moved that goalpost.

 

[blulilacgrl]

That's exactly what you argued--and rather challengingly and dismissively. Sorry, babe, I saw where you moved that goalpost.

I never argued that Michener didn't hire researchers.

My contention was that Michener DID extensive research. If you inferred otherwise then that was your leap, not my stated words.

But it was an interesting argument. Confusing and at times frustrating, but still interesting.

Hope you have a nice evening!

 

[Bramblethorn]

Well, true. And that's probably why beginning writers are urged to stay within the box. But, going back to the original question. "Write what you know" is being put out there as an axiom in advanced writing seminars too, not just in freshmen creative writing classes--without a lot of discussion on what that means. At least on this thread, we're trying to give some meaning to the "what you know" term. It seems to me that it's coming down not to staying in the bounds of what you know without looking beyond the box you're in, but what you know after researching the background that needs to be researched on themes/topics/locales that make you stretch your knowledge and exploration.

Sure. I certainly don't think "write what you know" should be applied as "write only what you know NOW". If you want to write stuff you don't know yet, go and acquire that knowledge. (Just avoid regurgitating great big undigested chunks of it - I remember one god-awful Jane Austen sequel that felt like the author was working off a travelogue of the area.)

Vaguely-relevant aside: once upon a time I read a spy novel (Alistair Maclean, I think) where a scientist started talking about fossils, on an island that already had been established as volcanic. I winced and muttered rude things about the author's lack of research - and then a few pages later the hero mentioned that the scientist had to be a fake, because you don't find fossils in volcanic rocks. I had to mutter an apology to Mr. Maclean!

 

[TimothyM]

What are you talking about? Michener was known for his extensive research and attention to detail. His Pulitzer Prize novel came about because of notes he took while stationed in the South Pacific during the War.

He is the poster child for write what you know! Michener would never have written about something that he had not thoroughly researched and had an understanding of.

I'm sorry but I'm with SR here. Whether you meant to or not, the above post left me with the clear impression that you were saying that SR was wrong in stating that Michener had used researchers to help him with his work.

When I reread the SR post above yours (the one you reacted to), I can make myself imagine that maybe you mistook his words to mean that he was saying that Michener did not research. But to me SR was actually giving Michener as an example to support your statement that some writers hired people to do their research.

So I understand why he was totally surprised by your subsequent outburst. And of course it just went down hill from there, with both of you feeling unjustly accused. And I probably should not get in the middle of it, but I hope you can reconcile with the conclusion that it was a mistake and you actually agree about Michener being a great writer and researcher

 

[sr71plt]

Sure. I certainly don't think "write what you know" should be applied as "write only what you know NOW".

I have been posting that I thought the interpretation by many writers is that this "axiom" does mean "write only what you know NOW" and that this is being translated into a whole lot of "little perspective" and dull stories here and elsewhere.