Excellent essay! Write what you know is always taken too literally, especially by the proponents of auto fiction. And about that quote, I’d always heard it attributed to Red Smith, and that was before the Internet made it impossible to know who said anything.
Food for thought: I'll admit that what you're addressing is literary fiction, which is different from the King/Clancy/Patterson school of hack writing, but I wonder ...
While it is true that even the most fanciful world a writer creates can/does contain "truths" or their bleeding hearts, does every book one writes or reads have to contain accurate philosophic or gut-wrenching observations of the human condition? Writing about only that which a writer knows or experiences means s/he's already limited h/her imagination. Orwell knew about Fascism and Communism, but he lived in a world before the advances in technology made his hell-on-earth totalitarianism possible. Yet, he could imagine and a possible future course of reality ---he does not, however, imagine how we 2025 folks can prevent and/or destroy such a world with practical advice. Why? Because he's not living in 2025. He doesn't know about Trumpism and the current dismantling of the tyranny of the administrative state. It's much the same Max Weber who wrote about the iron cage of bureaucracy, and the disenchantment of the universe. It's the same for Jules Verne, DaVinci's drawings, and H.G. Wells.
I hope the writer of the Dexter series has never killed anyone. And Ben Hur is fiction, too, albeit inspiring. Did Cecil B. DeMille actually see Moses part the Red Sea? I know enough about government to know it's bullshit, but I'm also a patriotic American.
I understand what you said about your students. Some take their studies seriously and others don't. Some struggle to add 2+2 and come up with five, write it down, and the world calls it genius. Creative writing is different from academic or business communications or legal briefs or how-to build better mouse-trap books because it doesn't have to be the product of what people know .... enter the Jabberwocky. I would suggest that most American creative writing limits itself to the internal/subjective/idiosyncratic approach to truth rather than the external/objective/universal, and that's why more people write than read. Those that do read fiction, develop a cult of personality, or genre, i.e. become fans of a person, rather than objectively evaluate content and, as you address in your superlative essays, style.
Excellent essay. I don't know about you, but this is one of the things I see people absolutely miss the real point of when they start out. Very well put.
I think most of us missed the point of the advice early on. That’s why I think from a tautological perspective when you tell young writers this, you need to be very explicit about what you mean.
Which you do a fine job of eludicating in your essay, by the way.
Really useful advice, Thaddeus, thank you. ‘Write what you know’ is far more than the basic meaning of those four words. ‘Tell truth through fiction’ (or lies) feels much more expansive.
This is a good reframing of the old advice. Still, I’d take it a step further and posit that when you “write what you know” as is described here (which is the only way to write anything impactful to anyone, including yourself), you aren’t engaging in truth-telling so much as truth-uncovering.
I wrote a novel directly based on my experience with psychosis, which sounds like my own misunderstanding of “write what you know,” but was actually my attempt to convey the subjective truth of my experiences to someone who lacked and/or shared similar experiences.
The best part is that “what I knew” changed as I wrote.
Writing “what you know,” in any interpretation of the phrase, is limiting, because “knowing” is the endpoint of learning and discovery.
Write like a child picking apart a music box—with or without the intention of ever putting it back together. Maybe the first two or three drafts are the disassembly, and the subsequent drafts are the reassembly.
I’d argue that you (think you) know a bit about what a music box contains, but in the act you’ll discover what it’s truly made of.
I also appreciate this one from the essay: write to make yourself squirm. That one’s given me some of my best stuff.
Excellent essay! Write what you know is always taken too literally, especially by the proponents of auto fiction. And about that quote, I’d always heard it attributed to Red Smith, and that was before the Internet made it impossible to know who said anything.
Somebody,. somewhere, bled on a typewriter. That’s all I know. lol
Food for thought: I'll admit that what you're addressing is literary fiction, which is different from the King/Clancy/Patterson school of hack writing, but I wonder ...
While it is true that even the most fanciful world a writer creates can/does contain "truths" or their bleeding hearts, does every book one writes or reads have to contain accurate philosophic or gut-wrenching observations of the human condition? Writing about only that which a writer knows or experiences means s/he's already limited h/her imagination. Orwell knew about Fascism and Communism, but he lived in a world before the advances in technology made his hell-on-earth totalitarianism possible. Yet, he could imagine and a possible future course of reality ---he does not, however, imagine how we 2025 folks can prevent and/or destroy such a world with practical advice. Why? Because he's not living in 2025. He doesn't know about Trumpism and the current dismantling of the tyranny of the administrative state. It's much the same Max Weber who wrote about the iron cage of bureaucracy, and the disenchantment of the universe. It's the same for Jules Verne, DaVinci's drawings, and H.G. Wells.
I hope the writer of the Dexter series has never killed anyone. And Ben Hur is fiction, too, albeit inspiring. Did Cecil B. DeMille actually see Moses part the Red Sea? I know enough about government to know it's bullshit, but I'm also a patriotic American.
I understand what you said about your students. Some take their studies seriously and others don't. Some struggle to add 2+2 and come up with five, write it down, and the world calls it genius. Creative writing is different from academic or business communications or legal briefs or how-to build better mouse-trap books because it doesn't have to be the product of what people know .... enter the Jabberwocky. I would suggest that most American creative writing limits itself to the internal/subjective/idiosyncratic approach to truth rather than the external/objective/universal, and that's why more people write than read. Those that do read fiction, develop a cult of personality, or genre, i.e. become fans of a person, rather than objectively evaluate content and, as you address in your superlative essays, style.
I believe this applies to all fiction, and the end result can be the characters you identify with and who ring true.
It is shallow when people write about topics they know little about.
Less opportunity for presenting a unique insight.
Excellent essay. I don't know about you, but this is one of the things I see people absolutely miss the real point of when they start out. Very well put.
I know I missed the point early on. And yeah, you see so many people screaming about what horrible advice it is.
I think most of us missed the point of the advice early on. That’s why I think from a tautological perspective when you tell young writers this, you need to be very explicit about what you mean.
Which you do a fine job of eludicating in your essay, by the way.
Really useful advice, Thaddeus, thank you. ‘Write what you know’ is far more than the basic meaning of those four words. ‘Tell truth through fiction’ (or lies) feels much more expansive.
Ironic when good writing advice is poorly written 😆
I know! 😂
This is a good reframing of the old advice. Still, I’d take it a step further and posit that when you “write what you know” as is described here (which is the only way to write anything impactful to anyone, including yourself), you aren’t engaging in truth-telling so much as truth-uncovering.
I wrote a novel directly based on my experience with psychosis, which sounds like my own misunderstanding of “write what you know,” but was actually my attempt to convey the subjective truth of my experiences to someone who lacked and/or shared similar experiences.
The best part is that “what I knew” changed as I wrote.
Writing “what you know,” in any interpretation of the phrase, is limiting, because “knowing” is the endpoint of learning and discovery.
Write like a child picking apart a music box—with or without the intention of ever putting it back together. Maybe the first two or three drafts are the disassembly, and the subsequent drafts are the reassembly.
I’d argue that you (think you) know a bit about what a music box contains, but in the act you’ll discover what it’s truly made of.
I also appreciate this one from the essay: write to make yourself squirm. That one’s given me some of my best stuff.
Thanks, Thaddeus, this was great.