Series Overview

The more I learn about writing, the more advice I see from writers. Now, much of it is very good and sensible. But there are some things that I have seen writers say, that I am increasingly more and more alarmed at. As I have traveled further on my writing journey, I have found that those bits of advice have at the very least not worked for me, and at the very most, are simply wrong. In this series, I will cover several of the things that writers have said, that I have found are just wrong.

Article Overview

The second bit of mistaken advice that I have come across, is… Write what you know. But what does this mean? Doesn’t everyone do it? What’s wrong with writing what you know? And if you’re not supposed to write what you know, what are you supposed to do?

What Does It Mean?

There is some disagreement about precisely what ‘write what you know’ actually means. Some say it is literally writing what you know, firsthand experiences. Some say it’s a little more figurative, more along the lines of writing what you know due to in-depth research. Some say it’s even more figurative than that, and includes emotional intuition and understanding. Obviously, they cannot all be true at the same time. So what does it mean? Nothing, and everything. This is one of the problems. If no one can agree on what it means, why is it even being given as advice? But knowing the definition, or at least what each definition means, is important. We can’t figure out if it is right or wrong if we don’t look at it closely.

The Definitions

Can the real meaning of ‘write what you know’ be figured out by going through the three definitions, and picking the one that makes the most sense? Possibly. But the main purpose for me going through the definitions is to show you why precisely ‘write what you know’ is mistaken advice. So, here we go!

Definition One. Firsthand Experiences

This is the first definition of ‘write what you know’ and it seems pretty self-explanatory. Literally ‘write what you know.’ But just as the definition is obvious, the problems are also obvious. You can probably see several of these right off the bat. I will not cover all of them, but I will talk about a few.

Problem One: There’s a lot I have not been or done or said or experienced. So, according to this definition, anything I have not experienced, I cannot write about. So, do I have to go out and get more experiences so I can write the stories I want to write? Or do I have to stick with my own measly experiences?

Problem Two: It severely narrows the field of who can write. The average person hasn’t done much of anything that would be great to put in a book. If they have to write only what they have experienced first hand… most people can’t write anything.

Problem Three: It throws imagination out the window. The purpose of imagination is to fill in the gaps where we lack experience. If you can’t use anything but your personal experience, you can’t use your imagination. But writers are supposed to be creative people. How can you be creative if you can’t create things that don’t exist?

Problem Four: Conflict makes stories. You can’t have a story without conflict. The idea of writing only firsthand experiences looks over the fact that there are some experiences that are bad in real life — necessitating avoidance — but which make great content in stories. Decent people with good, stable families and quiet lives can’t write. After all, taking the definition and mixing it with the fact that conflict makes stories… you really can’t be a good writer unless you’ve either done bad things or had bad things done to you.

Problem Five: Readers relate to things that they are familiar with. If a writer is stuck writing what they also are familiar with, they can only reach readers who have experienced what the writer has!

So, there’s obviously a lot of problems with this first definition. But just because one perceived definition of this phrase is obviously wrong, that doesn’t mean the phrase itself is wrong. Which brings us to definition two.

Definition Two. In-Depth Research

Compared to the first definition, the idea of this is a veritable paradise! After all, if I haven’t personally experienced something, at the very least I can look it up! But…

Problem One: Anyone who has done research knows that certain topics are practically impossible to find! As nice as the internet is, it doesn’t have everything on it, and it takes intensive digging to figure out some things, if it’s there at all! But isn’t this a problem more with the internet than this definition? Not really. The second definition still restricts writers, but in this case, it restricts them to things they can find lots of information on. After all, you can’t do in-depth research based off of one obscure article you found.

Problem Two: Information contradicts! Even if you can find it, you will also find a dozen or more different opinions! And so, while the research starts out as in-depth research for a book, it inevitably ends in a ‘who do you believe?’ battle. Not only does this put unnecessary strain on the writer, it also makes it impossible to actually ‘know’ what you’re writing about. You have to choose who to believe, then believe what they’re telling you. What if they’re wrong?

Problem Three: Some things can’t be known. There’s only so much research I can do to try and figure out how knights actually lived in the middle ages! Research is usually written by people of the modern era, and they couldn’t possibly have known what the knights had done, they weren’t there.

Problem Four: Researchers come across the same problems as writers do. But researchers do have to ‘write what they know,’ because what they are supposed to be doing is telling people the truth about what really happened or how things were really done. Unfortunately, most of them, after finding little evidence, start to use their imagination. And this poses a problem. Doing in-depth research on something that’s only half-true is no better than using your imagination to fill in the blanks! It all ends up being make-believe! And if you’re going to end up using imagination, why not use your own?

So, definition two, though a little better than one, still has pretty severe and limiting problems, and I haven’t even mentioned them all yet! So… what about definition three?

Definition Three. Emotional Understanding

Does this definition work any better?

Problem One: What does emotional understanding even mean? Emotional understanding is… understanding the emotions. Duh. But what does ’emotion’ mean? Is it anything the body feels outside of the five senses? Is it hormones? Is ’emotion’ only when you have a visible reaction? Where is the line drawn between ’emotions’ and more spiritual things, like peace and joy? Or are they also emotions? And what does ‘understand’ mean? Does it mean to know it inside and out? Does it mean to have an inkling of what it means? Does it mean knowing precisely how it would feel? If ’emotional understanding’ is knowing how hormones, triggered by certain occurrences, react with the body, then that leaves out anything spiritual, and it’s also not taking into account that each person feels things differently, and reacts to their emotions in a different way. If emotions are apart from things like peace and joy, then ‘understanding emotions’ is not enough. A writer must also understand the spiritual side of things. I could go on and on, but I think I have gotten across the idea.

Problem Two: Understanding emotional states does not have anything to do with understanding a person. People are not emotions. Emotions are part of them. So understanding emotions is helpful for a writer only when they are writing about a person’s emotions.

Well, definition three doesn’t seem to answer the problem. It only gives more, and they are a whole lot more confusing!

Obviously There Are Problems

You can see, there are lots of problems with every definition of ‘write what you know,’ and there are many things still left unanswered. What about imagination? And what about people? You can’t do in-depth research about a 45 year old, one-eyed squirrel war hero with PTSD living in a medieval-1700’s Age of Sail fantasy populated with anthropomorphic animals! Believe me, I tried. Sure, I can research the medieval era, and the 1700’s, and ships, and people with PTSD, and what it’s like to have one eye, and what it’s like to be in war (sort of, except most war heroes don’t talk about it), and I can do the research for how modern 45 year-olds feel and act, and go into the science behind being middle aged, then research everything about squirrels. And at the end of it all, I will know diddly-squat about the character. All I’ve learned by research is their surroundings! Not them! I can’t research them. No one knows about them except themselves.

Any Redemption?

Are there any redeeming qualities to writing what you know, or is it all utter piffle? The truth is, there are several good things about writing what you know, which can help writers with their stories. You will sound a whole lot more authentic if you write things you know about. Pulling from personal experiences and feelings can make your characters feel more like real people. Knowing how emotions work with each individual character will also make each character feel like themselves. There’s no problem with using personal experiences and knowledge to help you with your writing. There’s no problem with doing in-depth research. I’ve found myself spending longer than I expected looking at the anatomy of a ship, because I needed it for my story. In researching for my current book, I’ve learnt things that for my current book might not be pertinent, but which will help me in the future. I’m not against research, or emotional understanding, or pulling from your own personal experience. The problem comes when you use it exclusively, throwing out everything else, especially imagination.

What To Do!

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.” – Ecclesiastes 3:1

There’s a time for research. A time for pulling from your own personal experiences. And there’s also a time for imagination and creativity. As you go on your writing journey, you will learn to know each time, when it is, and when it isn’t. Writing what you know is not bad in itself, as long as you realize that it is not the only way to go. So, what to you do? Write what you want to write! If you don’t know something and feel that you should, look it up. If you can’t find anything about it, most likely no one else knows, either. So use your imagination! Keep in mind that your audience probably consists 99.9% of average people leading average lives. Average people who have never found it necessary to look into nuclear physics, or the daily life of squirrels. If you write about something, and someone who has experience with that thing tells you it’s not that way, feel free to learn more. But also don’t feel like a failure. And don’t give up!

Conclusion

The advice ‘write what you know’ may seem innocent on the surface. But if you delve into it at all, it reveals a very nasty conundrum which can be very hard for many writers, and can mislead them in their journey. Experience is a great tool. So is imagination. Use them both! A writer’s job is not to be statistically correct! A writer’s job to share the truth in as many different ways, showing as many different worlds and experiences, to reach as many different people as you can, so that some will see, and believe.

Until next time, keep writing, keep learning, and keep growing.