Accuracy in Story Writing

[cacian]

Should story writing be accurate when it comes to humanity or human relationships?
In other words should I only write about a human consequence if I have been involved with it or have experience of it?
The rest or anything else should be down to imagination.

For example:
I should only write about relationships and affairs if I have had one myself?
or
I must not include a gay scene if I am not gay myself?

[Charles Darnay]

There are two separate issues: accuracy, and personal experience. I do not believe that you can only write about what you have personally experienced, but on the other hand, you do need some accuracy - human actions and human consequences have to be based on some reality, not simply your imagination. Otherwise, you create a disconnect between your work and your readers, and your readers stop caring about what you write.

[cacian]

There are two separate issues: accuracy, and personal experience. I do not believe that you can only write about what you have personally experienced, but on the other hand, you do need some accuracy - human actions and human consequences have to be based on some reality, not simply your imagination. Otherwise, you create a disconnect between your work and your readers, and your readers stop caring about what you write.
Hi Charles thank you for posting.
In what way do you not believe one cannot write about what one has not experienced?
If I am say neither gay nor have had any affairs then I should not include them in my plots or characters.
But if I do not fly an aeroplane but write about as if I was a pilot then it is ok. Or not?

[hillwalker]

They say you should only write about 'what you know' but for most people that would leave very little worth writing about. I actually enjoy placing my characters in all sorts of predicaments that I've not experienced first hand then seeing how they react.

Imagination plays a part in writing fiction because the characters and situations they are in are generally made up by the writer. The fact that you have never had an affair doesn't mean that your characters can't have one. Observing human behaviour or reading about it is usually enough for one to imagine what it would be like to be in a relationship where you or the other person is already involved with someone else.

It's not a case of accuracy based on personal experience - it's a case of writing something authentic based on observation (but allowing imagination to flesh out the story).

H

[Cioran]

They say you should only write about 'what you know' but for most people that would leave very little worth writing about. I actually enjoy placing my characters in all sorts of predicaments that I've not experienced first hand then seeing how they react.

Imagination plays a part in writing fiction because the characters and situations they are in are generally made up by the writer. The fact that you have never had an affair doesn't mean that your characters can't have one. Observing human behaviour or reading about it is usually enough for one to imagine what it would be like to be in a relationship where you or the other person is already involved with someone else.

It's not a case of accuracy based on personal experience - it's a case of writing something authentic based on observation (but allowing imagination to flesh out the story).

H



I agree with this. The "write what you know" stuff is really inhibiting. You stoke the imagination by writing what you don't know -- letting your imagination take flight. "Writing what you know" is valid only for autobiographical stuff, which to me is tedious. Gogol said something to the effect that you ought to be able to make a story out of anything at all.

[Cioran]

Hi Charles thank you for posting.
In what way do you not believe one cannot write about what one has not experienced?
If I am say neither gay nor have had any affairs then I should not include them in my plots or characters.
But if I do not fly an aeroplane but write about as if I was a pilot then it is ok. Or not?

I"m not gay but somehow have found no difficulty in writing authentic gay characters, including descriptions of gay sex. Imagination, imagination, imagination.

[cacian]

I"m not gay but somehow have found no difficulty in writing authentic gay characters, including descriptions of gay sex. Imagination, imagination, imagination.

I am imagination is key here but how sure are you you are not putting a 'straight or non gay projection/view' into it?

[cacian]

They say you should only write about 'what you know' but for most people that would leave very little worth writing about. I actually enjoy placing my characters in all sorts of predicaments that I've not experienced first hand then seeing how they react.

Imagination plays a part in writing fiction because the characters and situations they are in are generally made up by the writer. The fact that you have never had an affair doesn't mean that your characters can't have one. Observing human behaviour or reading about it is usually enough for one to imagine what it would be like to be in a relationship where you or the other person is already involved with someone else.

It's not a case of accuracy based on personal experience - it's a case of writing something authentic based on observation (but allowing imagination to flesh out the story).

H

Observation is exterior what about the mental side of it?
How do I know how to cross my writing with what is going on inside someone's mind when they are thinking of cheating or whilst they are it?
Accuracy is key here if a reader/someone who has cheated is to identify with my writing.

[hillwalker]

I have written several short stories - and even a novel - from the first person pov of a female.
But I'm a guy - always have been.

Suggesting I'm probably putting a 'male view' into it (in the same way that a straight writer describing a gay character must be putting his/her 'distorted view' into it) is missing the point of what writing fiction is about. Did Robert Harris try cannibalism before writing 'Silence of the Lambs' or Sebastian Faulkes somehow transport himself back 80 years before writing 'Birdsong'?

If you are only able to write about what you see or know first hand without being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes - stick to journalism.

H

[Charles Darnay]

Hi Charles thank you for posting.
In what way do you not believe one cannot write about what one has not experienced?
If I am say neither gay nor have had any affairs then I should not include them in my plots or characters.
But if I do not fly an aeroplane but write about as if I was a pilot then it is ok. Or not?

That's not what I wrote. I meant....basically what Hill wrote.

[AuntShecky]

We can't all be like Hemingway -- physically and financially able enough to travel to far-flung places, shoot wild game, engage in bullfighting. The great writers of centuries of the past didn't base their works on autobiographical material; for instance, Dante didn't really have to go to hell to write The Inferno --before he wrote it, I mean, --
but apparently he put his enemies in there.


Didn't Henry James once say something to the effect that in his youth he'd overheard a conversation which gave him enough material to write fiction for a lifetime? Yep. The answer is using one's imagination. There's also a notion of doing one's homework-- good old fashioned research.

The old saw "Write what you know" could use some refinement: write what you want to know.

[cacian]

I guess we humans are well equipped in terms of forging lies because we do it sometimes without thinking.

Necessity requires it and a lie is a lie be it white or black.

But I could not 'pretend to be a cheat or a gay' when I am not. Writing is sensitive and must treated as such. I think anyway.

[hillwalker]

Eh? Where do you get such ideas?

Writing a fictional scene in which you describe an affair involving your characters having an affair doesn't mean you are pretending to be a cheat. It's not about you - it's about your characters. In the best writing the author is invisible.

H

[cacian]

Well it does make me think about the significance of what a true lie is.
Could it be a wishful thinking?


The other thing is it easier to write women characters when the writer is a man then it is to pretend their character is say gay?
I personally find it easier to write men characters but I do not find it remotely truthful or accurate to write a scene where there is violence say or attraction between two people of the same sex. That is because I am neither.

[hillwalker]

But you're not a man either (I believe) so your imagination allows you to pretend something you're not. In the same way you can imagine a character behaving violently in a way completely opposite to your own way of behaving if you put your mind to it. Perhaps you're afraid your readers will confuse your characters with you and assume everything you write is from personal experience or beliefs.

H

[Delta40]

You must be able to transform yourself. Stand outside of your own box. Step into the shoes of the character and give them an authentic voice. The way you frame it, anyone would think a crime was being comitted if the writer was not genuinely the people they write about, which is absolute rubbish of course. One must be able to employ their imagination along with knowledge they have acquired in order to produce a piece of work that the reader will appreciate. I'm never going to be a man but I have talked to some in my lifetime and I'm sure I could draw on my experiences to help me when writing about one!

[cacian]

But you're not a man either (I believe) so your imagination allows you to pretend something you're not. In the same way you can imagine a character behaving violently in a way completely opposite to your own way of behaving if you put your mind to it. Perhaps you're afraid your readers will confuse your characters with you and assume everything you write is from personal experience or beliefs.

H
Yes I am not a man but I find it easier to write men characters. It is second nature to me.
I can't write violent scenes however because I have never been violent and so to write something I am not I find disappointing because I do not mean it from the heart. I feel I have to be exact. As a writer I have to be a perfectionist in the scenes and plots otherwise I would not write.
I might not write a lot haha but when I write I write with accuracy in mind. That is me and it suits me.
I do write with what feels natural to me and so as I mentioned before I can write truthfully without disguise or pretence.
I am not however afraid of my readers as you mention it.
What I want my reader to bear in mind is that everything I write is because I feel can invent without reinvention.
The ideas are mine and not some kind of made up situations I plotted in my head relying on already existing situation. I only write what feels right for me and so do not pretend.
I like writers who keep true to themselves or do not go where they have never been. I find them a joy because their consistency is their reality.

[Delta40]

Yes I am not a man but I find it easier to write men characters. It is second nature to me.
I can't write violent scenes however because I have never been violent and so to write something I am not I find disappointing because I do not mean it from the heart. I feel I have to be exact. As a writer I have to be a perfectionist in the scenes and plots otherwise I would not write.
I might not write a lot haha but when I write I write with accuracy in mind. That is me and it suits me.
I do write with what feels natural to me and so as I mentioned before I can write truthfully without disguise or pretence.

That is where a good writer comes in. The ability to adopt adverse natures and write about them so convincingly. The writer is not questioning their own personal self when they go through this creative process.

[cacian]

Hi Delta yes I agree that creativity is everything but to be creative is to be imaginative.
However it is hard to be imaginative without sounding repetitive.
One has to always take into account the influences of others. A writer is continuously influence by other writers and critics and so it is hard to assert ones' own imagination without sounding like your favourite writer film maker comedian and so on.

I think style for example is an alternative to creativity and works wonder with imagination combined.
It is about taking an ordinary something and turning it into the extraordinary that is creativity.
Style is unique to each one of us and into down to us to think about and find it.

For example take a group of people, give them paint and thrown a nude model and ask to paint what they see. The results are going to be similar and different. But it is going to be more similar then different.
Now take the same group of people give them paint and ask them to paint something that they like.
The results is going to be very different. More different then similar.

To take that to writing then it is the style versus the content.
One does not have to go very far in imagination because there is so much one can imagine.
What one must do I think is write according to how they would imagine a scene, an everyday scene, to be away from their own reality.
In effect you take one real scene you either have seen read about or experience and put in a totally different environment ie an imagined place time and movement.
It is not about how you see the scene progresses it is about how you would imagine it to progress in a very different environment.
It is not about the scenes or the plots it is about where they take place in your own imaginary mind.

And so in order for me to imagine I will need to trim a situation down to its bare bone which means taking out all the overlapping, too obvious, loud, or nasty bit and start it from scratch to develop it to take a different turn of events.
It is not about ''him hurting another'' it is about and the ''other and him'' getting together and creating a third eventual scene that should lead to a fourth and fifth thus by avoiding a confrontation, I am able to create more situations and so on.
If ''him and the other'' end up fighting then the end is too soon and the story stops there.

[Delta40]

The only thing you're describing is the processes of your own imagination and what would make sense to you. It has no bearing on anyone else's. Nor should it limit them.

[hillwalker]

You have no imagination, and you imply that anyone who writes using their own imagination are somehow being untruthful.

I repeat, stick to journalism in that case and forget about writing fiction because you're wasting your time. It's like those short-sighted individuals who don't see any point in reading novels because they're made-up stories.

H

[Delta40]

I knew a guy once who couldn't read books because all he saw was words on a page. That was the extent of his imagination.

[cacian]

Well I don't know imagination is varied and has not one meaning but many.
Here is one I took today from a lesson:

I am told this:

Make a cup of tea and prepare all that goes with it cups sugar cakes or whatever accompanies the tea.
You are now going to imagine you are about to drink your tea.
Write about it.
The idea is to take from reality a piece of what you do everyday and perform in a different way whilst you imagine you in the midst of carrying on the act.
It was quite a fun lesson.
Everyone has an imagination but not everyone knows how to imagine to the potential of it.

[stlukesguild]

I agree that creativity is everything but to be creative is to be imaginative.
However it is hard to be imaginative without sounding repetitive.

This makes little sense. Our everyday lives tend to be far more mundane and repetitive than imagination and fantasy.

One has to always take into account the influences of others. A writer is continuously influence by other writers and critics and so it is hard to assert ones' own imagination without sounding like your favourite writer film maker comedian and so on.

What is your point? Are you suggesting that the influences of other artists and writers upon you are something negative that undermines your own voice? It would seem to me that what I read by other writers, the art I look at, the films I watch the music I listen to, my dreams and fantasies are all part of my personal "reality" and go into the making of my artistic voice. There is no way I can invent the whole of art myself.

I think style for example is an alternative to creativity and works wonder with imagination combined.
It is about taking an ordinary something and turning it into the extraordinary that is creativity.
Style is unique to each one of us and into down to us to think about and find it.

So you are suggesting that "style" alone can compensate for a lack of imagination... or can turn the most mundane, bland, everyday life experiences into something marvelous and worth reading? Perhaps. In the right hands. But I can't say that many of the greatest works of art or literature, in my opinion, involved nothing beyond the artist's perceptions of everyday reality: getting out of bed, fixing breakfast, going to work, driving home through rush hour traffic, taking a shower, sitting in front of the TV, typing comments on LitNet... not exactly the most motivating subjects.

For example take a group of people, give them paint and thrown a nude model and ask to paint what they see. The results are going to be similar and different. But it is going to be more similar then different.
Now take the same group of people give them paint and ask them to paint something that they like.
The results is going to be very different. More different then similar.

This analogy seems to undermine your own argument. What you are suggesting is that limited to painting only that which the artist has experienced... the visual "reality" of the model... the differences between the works by a group of artists all painting the same subject... that which they see... will be rather limited... the result only of differences in "style". In contrast, the same artists given free reign to paint whatever they like will result in a far more varied body of paintings as they will build upon a variety of subjects... not always based upon their perceptions of visual reality.

Applying this analogy to literature, what it would suggest is that if we limit the writer to only writing about a certain "real" experience: shall we say the author's visual perceptions of that same nude model?... the resulting work will be far more limited... regardless of differences in style... than if we simply tell the writers to write about anything that interests you.

To take that to writing then it is the style versus the content.
One does not have to go very far in imagination because there is so much one can imagine.
What one must do I think is write according to how they would imagine a scene, an everyday scene, to be away from their own reality.
In effect you take one real scene you either have seen read about or experience and put in a totally different environment ie an imagined place time and movement.
It is not about how you see the scene progresses it is about how you would imagine it to progress in a very different environment.
It is not about the scenes or the plots it is about where they take place in your own imaginary mind.

You are limiting how a writer "should" write to your own preconceived notions of what writing is.