Write About What You Know

[mygoditsraining]

Ian Rankin was once asked how he knew so much about police procedures and what the interiors of Edinburgh's police stations were like, as when invited to comment on the world of Rebus, Scottish police staff had said the resemblance was uncanny and that he must have a brilliant source.

His response? A lot of it was made up.

Likewise, Christopher Brookmyre has commented frequently that he researches in the University Library of MUB, being Made Up...something or other, the actual acronym isn't important. He does admit to researching undersea volcanoes for "Not the End of the World" but then that's full of fake historical documents to balance it out.

"Write what you know" isn't generally intended to be literal advice. Taking idiom a little too closely too heart can be counter-productive.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

I think the advice should rather be "Don't read what you know"...

[Blackrook]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

I think the advice should rather be "Don't read what you know"...

That's good advice.

[dustinzgirl]

What if you don't know anything?

[Ursa major]

There's the whole world of books open to you....

[diegesis]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

I think the advice should rather be "Don't read what you know"...

That's great!
I think I was talking as a writer but you are so right. I have read all Vern books and I'm sure that if a farmer had written them he would have a great time but I wouldn't.

Great advice!

[diegesis]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

What if you don't know anything?

Well that's not possible unless you live in a bubble and have never seen or heard people. Or live in Plato's cave.

[Aes]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

What if you don't know anything?

Then you wouldn't know of anything to write about. or even how to write I'd imagine. You'd be limited to making grunts and moans until someone finally came down to your basement from upstairs and gave you a baby ruth.

[HareBrain]

Originally Posted by Aes

You'd be limited to making grunts and moans until someone finally came down to your basement from upstairs and gave you a baby ruth.

A dead baseball player? Eww ...

[chrispenycate]

Well, I just tried writing directly from my knowledge base, and discovered the two major drawbacks.

If you know something really deeply, the slightly less deep things are so obvious to you that everyone else must know them. Mustn't they? But they don't, and finding just the right mix of erudition and explanation can be very difficult, much more so than with something you have just researched. There, you remember how hard the base understanding was.

And if you are enthusiastic about your subject as well (as I tend to be) the tendency to infodump, to write five times the words you need and have to edit with a chain saw is overwhelming. Perhaps the reader is partially carried along by the feeling 'Hey, he actually likes music', but only so far; he doesn't want to know why an exponential horn is the optimal way of coupling a diaphragm to an air mass, so that would be counterproductive…

[Dante]

I interpret "write what you know" more from the perspective of character relationships and interactions. I write what I know in the sense that my dialogue and the emotions I describe are often derived from analogous experiences in my own life or those I've read. I personally don't invest much in researching. That's one of the reasons I write high fantasy. I really don't like getting bogged down in the minutia and plagued by the need for authenticity. I want my characters and their struggles to be authentic. I couldn't care less about knowing the precise physical equations governing Cerenkov radiation should I choose to use it. Unless you're writing a textbook on the subject, I don't consider "write what you know" to be applicable to the specifics of the world.