Write What You Know... ... ... Ish.

All---

I've actually had this topic bouncing around in my head for a long time, but now it's racing, thanks to Michelle Davidson Argyle's exposure of lies told to writers.  Every writer has heard this, and most non-writers have heard this:

"Write what you know."


Most of us writers have, at one time, believed this and taken it to heart.

Most of us writers have, at another time, rebelled fiercely against it.

I've come to believe that there is a very important truth in this statement, but that it's been lost due to abuse, misuse, over-preaching, and misunderstanding.  In her post, Michelle distills the value of this sentiment down to, "Write confidently."  I think that's part of it, but I would respectfully take it in a slightly different direction: "Write authentically."


It's odd to me that so many writers take this admonishment literally.  Some do this in their acceptance of the  maxim, to the great detriment of their writing.  Some do it in their refutation of the position, making a bit of a straw man.  I'll confess to now knowing the origin story of, "Write what you know," but I don't think it was meant to preclude imagination or writing about the exotic.

(As a brief aside, "Write what you know," is also the briefest form of the aphorism.  I have also been taught variations on it that inherently make more sense:  (1) "When you're stumped as a writer, you should always go back to the basics and write what you know."  (2) "When you're a new writer, trying to become comfortable with mechanics, style, and voice, you should start by writing what you know.")

Here are some things I think were not intended by the speculative first to teach, "Write what you know," that too many writers and even some writing teachers I've met, think are included:

• Write only locations you have been.
• Write only characters who are essentially like you.
• Write only plot-lines that mirror real experiences you have had.
• Write only from your own world view.
• Avoid writing fantasy, historical fiction, or anything speculative that is not grounded in hard science.

The list goes on, and only gets more absurd and more destructive to creativity as it goes.  Please don't go down that road.  It's not what I mean, and I'm fairly certain it's not what this idea is supposed to mean either.

"Write what you have experienced know firsthand know is real know."

So what do I think, "Write what you know" means?

I think confidence is part of it, but I think it's also about authenticity.  Confidence is critical, but confidence can also be misplaced.  I've read a lot of confidently written material that rings utterly false and the writing is weaker because of it.

I don't believe in any real rules, of course.  I will always stop short of saying you must write with authenticity.  I do firmly believe, however, that your strongest writing will always be authentic.  Authenticity implies that you can express what something is really like, not that you have necessarily experienced it yourself. 

Some ideas of what that might mean:

• Know the emotions, even if not the specific stimuli in the story.  If you're writing a story about the loneliness of a life where your dreams are always out of reach, you should understand what that feels like.  That doesn't mean that you need to have been in that exact position.  It means you need to understand the human condition, the drives, the longing, the emotions that are all involved.  Maybe this requires research.  Maybe it requires intelligent extrapolation.  Maybe it is something you've experienced.  But for your writing to be at its strongest, you should know these feelings -- not just guess about them.

• Research isn't always enough.  Research  is great for gathering facts.  Good research can even get you an idea of what others have experienced.    Research can also lead to false confidence, however, and you can write with an authority you don't really have.   I'm not talking about the nit-picky details, either.  I may cringe when I read passages about archaeologists, but I try my best not to be the guy that says, "We would never have used a quarter-inch screen in that kind of soil!"  Whoopty-whoop.  But when you make something integral to your story and the characters' experience, be aware of the potential limitations of research.  It's one thing to be sitting in Indiana and read research that indicates --20F degree temperatures are common in Alaskan winters.  It's another to actually understand what -20F degrees feels like and means for people.  Sometimes, it's just a matter of  making sure you have done the right research and found people who talk about how -20F without much wind really isn't that big a deal to people who live there, and that's it's probably inauthentic to have an Alaskan character mid-winter think of 0F as getting cold.   Sometimes, you can't find things out by research and you need to experience them for yourself.  The point, though, is to know these things, not simply to be aware of the basic facts. 

• Know enough.  This is really a capstone to the first two ideas.  It's also almost tautological.  If you're writing about an archaeologist, you don't need to know what a datum is unless it's important that you do.  Likewise, if the temperature is only a minor environmental note, it doesn't matter  if you know how people experience it.  But if you're writing about people's experience, suddenly it becomes important.  It's very tempting to take a piece of fact and guess about the experience.  "Okay, I know a patient in this condition will be vomiting.  EMT's deal with vomiting a lot.  What will probably happen is that the people around will be grossed out and the EMT will chuckle, unmoved by the grossness."  In point of fact, a vast majority of EMT's never get used to vomit.  That might be important if you're writing about an EMT response to vomit, but would be irrelevant if you were just having an EMT come to the aid of a vomiting patient.  Know enough about what you're writing in order to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish.

And finally...

• Know enough to understand when it doesn't matter.  Part of authenticity is understanding the variation that exists.  It's tempting sometimes to lock onto a fact and assume you must reflect it.  Not true.  But your writing will benefit from your knowing when it's best to reflect it and when it's not.  Go back the EMT example.  "Vast majority" does not equal "all."  Intentionally making a choice to have an EMT (for instance) be callous to vomit is quite different from simply not knowing in the first place.    It opens up opportunities.  "Seth chuckled quietly as both his partner and the sick girl's family withdrew with the stench of her sickness."

Those four points are just guidelines to help you understand what authenticity is about.  To cram it all into a simple take-away:

Writing what you know, or writing authentically, means knowing enough about what you're writing that even if you've never experienced it yourself before, your readers will feel as if they have, through your story.

.Nevets.

Tactless Tuesday #1 - The First Lie

All--

Welcome to the first Tactless Tuesday. Today begins a several week series examining lies that writers tell themselves. I know about most of these because I have told them to myself a hundred million times. In fact, as much as possible I will try to draw all illustrations from my own experience.

Lie #1 - Stories exist outside out imagination.

Few writers would tell this tell to themselves quite so brazenly. Let me suggest some alternative forms that this lie can take, which might sound more familiar:


I have to tell the story that demands to be written.

I can't change that part, because that's the how it happened.

My favorite part of writing is discovering what happens as the story goes on.

I just can't wait to see what happens next.

I didn't expect that to happen.


Each of these, in some way, requires that the story have its own existence -- an ability to compel your writing or determine its own course of action.

So what's the big deal? If that's how the writer perceive it, it's just a quirk of the human brain. No harm done.

Here's the truth that this lie often serves to conceal: The writer is in charge of the story.

Too often I talk to fellow writers or read their blogs and get this sense of helplessness. As if the writers are engaged in some dialectic struggle with spiritual force of their story, hoping that in the end, the result will be better than either the writer's will or the story's. But the story doesn't have a will. The writer is the boss! The writer is the creator!

Writers have the ability to take charge and take control. You have to write the story that demands to be written? Perhaps there's some psychological reason that you personally have to write the story, but it's not the story's fault. Take responsibility.

You want to see what happens? Hey, you're the one who makes it happen. You didn't like what happened? Change it. Something needs to be changed? The story never happened; you created it in your imagination, so changing it doesn't hurt anything or anyone.

Here's the point. Writers need to not feel helpless before their stories. Writers are all-powerful when it comes to what they create. That's the power of being the creator. Your story does not exist in some spiritual plain that you are tapping into. You are that story's momma and poppa and deity all in one. Make it yours. Claim it!

.Nevets.