What Does "Write What You Know" Really Mean?
Writers are always told, 'write what you know'.
Yes, this is one important aspect of writing.
It is a truism.
It is also false and misleading.
I know many writers who take it to heart, write about 'who' they know and then worry about people recognizing themselves.
It isn't necessary to write what you know in terms of your day job.
Let's say you are a mechanic, so does this mean that the only thing you can only write about is repairing machines? Or, you are a cook, so is the only thing you can write about kitchens or food? No, of course not.
As fiction writers, we are free to write about anything at all.
Think of all the science fiction writers who have written stories of space travel, aliens, amazing technology and far flung galaxies.
Did they write what they know? Well, some of them, Isaac Asimov was a physicist for example so he knew science, both practical and theoretical.
Obviously, this was a good grounding, and demonstrates where his interests were, but did he 'know' space travel or robots? No.
Yet, his robot stories are still considered the best ever written and the basis for most robot stories written since.
His three rules for robots are still considered the best prime directives for robots, including for real robot developers.
If you know nothing at all about science, then writing science fiction will be difficult.
If you want to write about brain surgery, obviously you won't get the opportunity to cut open a brain unless you actually are a brain surgeon.
Does this mean you can never write about it? No, of course not.
You will need to do some careful research, of course, but the focus of your story is more likely to be on the surgeon, the patient or someone else 'attached' to the surgery in some way, not the surgery itself.
The same can be said of any historical novel.
The writer was not, could not be there, yet they can write some wonderful, lasting stories which are utterly believable.
Look at Jean M Auel's The Earth Children series (starting with The Clan of the Cave Bear).
What do any of us know, other than in theoretical hypothesis based on palaeontology, archeology and anthropology what life as a cave person was like? Yet, her series became best selling and widely read.
All stories are about characters, or should be.
And this is where we must write what we know.
The emotional truth of the characters is what matters to the reader.
Firstly, we have to care about the character.
Then, the reader will care about the character, too.
It is also true that the writer might hate a character.
The reader will also hate the character.
Hopefully, both the writer and the reader will 'love' to hate the character.
There is a commonality between each and every one of us.
It is the state of being human.
We all have the same emotions, needs, hopes and connections.
Obviously, there are vast differences in actuality, but the basic core of who we are is the same everywhere.
It is this core which we know within ourselves and must draw on and create in our characters.
That is what 'Writing what you know' is really all about.
Yes, this is one important aspect of writing.
It is a truism.
It is also false and misleading.
I know many writers who take it to heart, write about 'who' they know and then worry about people recognizing themselves.
It isn't necessary to write what you know in terms of your day job.
Let's say you are a mechanic, so does this mean that the only thing you can only write about is repairing machines? Or, you are a cook, so is the only thing you can write about kitchens or food? No, of course not.
As fiction writers, we are free to write about anything at all.
Think of all the science fiction writers who have written stories of space travel, aliens, amazing technology and far flung galaxies.
Did they write what they know? Well, some of them, Isaac Asimov was a physicist for example so he knew science, both practical and theoretical.
Obviously, this was a good grounding, and demonstrates where his interests were, but did he 'know' space travel or robots? No.
Yet, his robot stories are still considered the best ever written and the basis for most robot stories written since.
His three rules for robots are still considered the best prime directives for robots, including for real robot developers.
If you know nothing at all about science, then writing science fiction will be difficult.
If you want to write about brain surgery, obviously you won't get the opportunity to cut open a brain unless you actually are a brain surgeon.
Does this mean you can never write about it? No, of course not.
You will need to do some careful research, of course, but the focus of your story is more likely to be on the surgeon, the patient or someone else 'attached' to the surgery in some way, not the surgery itself.
The same can be said of any historical novel.
The writer was not, could not be there, yet they can write some wonderful, lasting stories which are utterly believable.
Look at Jean M Auel's The Earth Children series (starting with The Clan of the Cave Bear).
What do any of us know, other than in theoretical hypothesis based on palaeontology, archeology and anthropology what life as a cave person was like? Yet, her series became best selling and widely read.
All stories are about characters, or should be.
And this is where we must write what we know.
The emotional truth of the characters is what matters to the reader.
Firstly, we have to care about the character.
Then, the reader will care about the character, too.
It is also true that the writer might hate a character.
The reader will also hate the character.
Hopefully, both the writer and the reader will 'love' to hate the character.
There is a commonality between each and every one of us.
It is the state of being human.
We all have the same emotions, needs, hopes and connections.
Obviously, there are vast differences in actuality, but the basic core of who we are is the same everywhere.
It is this core which we know within ourselves and must draw on and create in our characters.
That is what 'Writing what you know' is really all about.
