Write about what you know?

[myrna22]

If you're also responding to my last point to BB, then, yes, I agree, but, as you indicated, the 'style' here is something that emerges out of character. What I'm objecting to is Brian's idea that he can make choices about how his characters express themselves independently of their own 'reality' – and worse, that to not make those, essentially cosmetic, choices would constitute laziness.

I was just responding to the one statement I quoted. But in a general way, my response addressed the topic about 'profanity' in literature.

I agree with you. The characters should speak as they naturally would and not be censored. Has to do with, as you said, the author's understanding of the characters, which is why I was wondering, in my mind not in my post, why the poster was writing about a contract killer and his cohorts. Whatever happened to 'write about what you know'? I really can't think of a great book and great writing wherein the novelist isn't writing from personal experience and observation. I suppose science fiction or fantasy, but even then, in good writing, the characters are composites of people the authors have probably encountered in their lives, and the situations are archetypal situations simply transferred to a fantasy or futuristic setting. I'm not a fan of the Godfather books, but at least Puzo had personal experience with the milieu about which he was writing.

[blp]

I was wondering, in my mind not in my post, why the poster was writing about a contract killer and his cohorts. Whatever happened to 'write about what you know'? I really can't think of a great book and great writing wherein the novelist isn't writing from personal experience and observation. I suppose science fiction or fantasy, but even then, in good writing, the characters are composites of people the authors have probably encountered in their lives, and the situations are archetypal situations simply transferred to a fantasy or futuristic setting. I'm not a fan of the Godfather books, but at least Puzo had personal experience with the milieu about which he was writing.

Well, this is the standard interpretation of 'write about what you know' and has a lot to recommend it, but it's rather passive and limiting. You can get to know all sorts of things. Research can be one of the very great things about writing – deciding you're interested in something and then going out to get as much knowledge and experience of it as possible.

[myrna22]

Well, this is the standard interpretation of 'write about what you know' and has a lot to recommend it, but it's rather passive and limiting. You can get to know all sorts of things. Research can be one of the very great things about writing – deciding you're interested in something and then going out to get as much knowledge and experience of it as possible.

I can't think of any--tell me, what are some great books that have been written about people and events of which the writer has absolutely no first hand knowledge, except for fantasy or science fiction?

[blp]

I can't think of any--tell me, what are some great books that have been written about people and events of which the writer has absolutely no first hand knowledge, except for fantasy or science fiction?

War and Peace is set 60 years before it was written. Tolstóy's research into the Napoleonic Wars was so good, he was able to correct mistakes in the standard histories.

Come on, there are loads. Tons of Shakespeare plays are set in times and places other than the author's.

Anyway, my point wasn't that first-hand knowledge was unimportant, but that, very often, with a bit of effort, it could be acquired.


Tolstoy wrote about Russion culture and used archetypal characters and situations. He wrote about the culture, political and social, with which he was familiar. I am not, in my question, referring to someone doing historical research about a period of time before they lived, but about dealing with situations, characters, motivations outside their personal experience.

Though Shakespeare's plays were set in times and places other than his, the characters, the themes, the motivations, all reflected English people during Elizabethan times and/or were archetypal and universal in nature.

Perhaps the person who posted about writing a scene between a contract killer and one of his cohorts is writing a small scene in a novel that focuses on something else, but if this is a story that focuses on contract killers and/or organized crime, I am doubtful the writer has any first hand knowledge of this type of situation and imagine it is based on what the writer has seen in movies or read about in other books.

The aphorism 'write about what you know' doesn't mean you have to write about your own little corner of the world and only about specific people you've met or situations you have been in, it means writing about ideas you know and understand, motivations you know and understand. The characters in Shakespeare's plays are acting on archetypal, universal motivations for the most part, but in any other way, they reflect an Elizabethan perspective on the world. He did write about what he knew. So did Tolstoy and so do all accomplished writers.

That's where the effective use of diction comes in. How would professional killers talk to each other? How would they think? Unless you've been part of that world in one way or another, you wouldn't know.

myrna, I might take issue with some of what you say up there, but it's, if you don't mind my saying so, a bit off-topic. Anyway, if you look back, you'll see I wasn't setting out to defend BB's passage about a contract killer, which I haven't read so have no opinion on, but suggest an ever-so slightly different interpretation of 'write about what you know'. And it's only a very slight shift of emphasis: not just write about what you already know, but if you want to write about something, get to know it. I wasn't initially suggesting writers should write about what they do not know, which is almost the position I feel you're trying to get me to defend.

[Scheherazade]

I can't think of any--tell me, what are some great books that have been written about people and events of which the writer has absolutely no first hand knowledge, except for fantasy or science fiction?I also agree with blp that:
Anyway, my point wasn't that first-hand knowledge was unimportant, but that, very often, with a bit of effort, it could be acquired.

Historical fiction is written in this manner, isn't it? And there are many books which are written by authors who acquire the background information on their books through research. Atonement, Birdsong, River God, Middlesex... Just couple of books I can think of at the moment.

[blp]

Is it time for a thread on 'Write about what you know'? This doesn't seem to me to be the place.

[Scheherazade]

Is it time for a thread on 'Write about what you know'? This doesn't seem to me to be the place.Oh, go on then... You twisted my arm.

:p

[blp]

Well you could have told me!

There. If it's not clear from what Scher said, the above is all lifted from a thread on swearing in novels, where we were going off-topic.

OK, well, I hope myrna gets the message that this is continuing down here.



Tolstoy wrote about Russion culture and used archetypal characters and situations. He wrote about the culture, political and social, with which he was familiar. I am not, in my question, referring to someone doing historical research about a period of time before they lived, but about dealing with situations, characters, motivations outside their personal experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'archetypal' characters or situations, myrna. In a Jungian sense, this would mean they were generalised symbolic figures representing universal types such as the mother and father, whereas Tolstóy's panoply of characters feel extremely individualistic (and often extraordinarily tangible and well-rounded) in their characterisations. The situations they find themselves in may have aspects of the archetypal (people fall in love, are frustrated, engage in war etc.) but many of them are also extremely historically specific and, from what I can gather, scrupulously well-researched. 60 years is a long time in any era. One might argue that less changed over that period in 60 years of 19th Century Russian history than it did over 60 years of 20th Century European history perhaps, but still, to take just one example, Tolstóy would have had to figure out from a considerable distance what it was like to be present at the burning of Moscow by the French and to be taken prisoner by them.


Though Shakespeare's plays were set in times and places other than his, the characters, the themes, the motivations, all reflected English people during Elizabethan times and/or were archetypal and universal in nature.

Sorry, but this thing about archetypes feels like a too-easy get-out from your assertion that direct experience is necessary. As if you're saying, one must have direct experience of something unless it is an archetype. But what does that mean? Falling in love might be said to be an archetypal situation, but I'd still feel leery of writing about it without ever having experienced it and, failing that, talking to a lot of other people who'd been in love to get some sense of what it's like.

However, if archetype status is enough to put something within one's writerly orbit, why can't it apply to a scene with a contract killer, even if one's never met one? Certain common experiences are likely to be in play, which might be described as archetypal: anger, violence, nervousness etc.

Your point seems to be that you're going to get the details wrong if you haven't met a real contract killer and I'd tend to agree. I don't see that something being an archetype is going to help with that much. But, given that so much of human experience is variations on certain key elements, I'd say a certain amount of a contract killer's experience might be imagined through empathy – and, given that even the real contract killers you might meet wouldn't necessarily be honest about all their experiences, it might be necessary, for instance, to show that they are, at times, afraid.

Your point about Shakespeare seems to be that whatever setting his plays appeared to have, he was always really just writing about Elizabethan society. To which I can only reply: Titus Andronicus, Troilus and Cressida, Othello, Macbeth, The Tempest and Julius Cesar.


Perhaps the person who posted about writing a scene between a contract killer and one of his cohorts is writing a small scene in a novel that focuses on something else, but if this is a story that focuses on contract killers and/or organized crime, I am doubtful the writer has any first hand knowledge of this type of situation and imagine it is based on what the writer has seen in movies or read about in other books.

My only real point originally was that this kind of info can be acquired. The writers of the US TV show The Wire are also crime novelists and scrupulously research their stories by hanging around with police officers.


The aphorism 'write about what you know' doesn't mean you have to write about your own little corner of the world and only about specific people you've met or situations you have been in, it means writing about ideas you know and understand, motivations you know and understand. The characters in Shakespeare's plays are acting on archetypal, universal motivations for the most part, but in any other way, they reflect an Elizabethan perspective on the world. He did write about what he knew. So did Tolstoy and so do all accomplished writers.

That's where the effective use of diction comes in. How would professional killers talk to each other? How would they think? Unless you've been part of that world in one way or another, you wouldn't know.

'Effective use of diction' is partly going to be about expressing motivation and emotion, but these things would appear to fall into the category of what you suggest are archetypes, for which we don't need direct experience, according to you. The bit we'd need to research would then be cosmetic cultural matter of demotic speech and, as I say, there are ways to find this kind of thing out through empirical research.

I'd say, to partially agree with your archetypes point, that, yes, we can imagine some of the contract killer's experience, but that our depiction's still likely to be richer if we manage to meet and speak with some real contract killers, or people who have some experience of them.

And perhaps you won't deny that. But you began this wondering why someone who had no experience of a contract killer would be writing about one at all. As if, in contradiction of what you say above, 'write about what you know' does mean only writing about your own little corner of the world and never going out and finding out about new ones.

[Mariner]

I can't think of any--tell me, what are some great books that have been written about people and events of which the writer has absolutely no first hand knowledge, except for fantasy or science fiction?

Grisham, Clancy, King...all those big names. Come on, do you think only army generals write military-thrillers? Really, research is key. We're writers, how much do you think I know about serial killers? I spend most of my days alone with a notebook in front of my face. I don't know many great writers who just sat down and "wrote."

[myrna22]

Grisham, Clancy, King...all those big names. Come on, do you think only army generals write military-thrillers? Really, research is key. We're writers, how much do you think I know about serial killers? I spend most of my days alone with a notebook in front of my face. I don't know many great writers who just sat down and "wrote."

Grisham, Clancy, King...not great writers imo. I don't think one is meant to take the write what you know quite so literally. However, I would say that if you have had no connection in any way with serial killers, no experience of police or investigators or psychological background with sociopaths, etc., it is a mistake to just do some research and try to write about them. My humble opinion and obviously not very popular here.

[johnw1]

I like this quote from Hemingway when he says writing "is made of knowledge, experience, wine, bread, oil, wine, salt, vinegar, bed, early mornings, nights, days, the sea, men, women, dogs, beloved motor cars, bicycles, hills and valleys, the appearance and disappearance of trains on straight and curved tracks ... **** grouse drumming on a basswood log, the smell of sweet-grass and fresh smoked leather and Sicily." I'm not a writer, but I think that's what is important - real, small experiences of life that must make up the writing whatever the subject...