That's the philosophy behind some writers, they will only write what they know. The thing about writing the kinds of thrillers I want to write is there is a lot of police/political/legal research that goes into the plots. In fact the research takes so long that it's probably best to make up the technicalities, if need be, and just keep on writing. But some writers just prefer to write what they know, and stay away from researching or making things up. So is it a good idea, to only limiting yourself to what you know, or is it better to just not let realism bother you and make up technicalities to serve the story, if need be?
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Should I only 'write what I know'?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
If you limit yourself to what you know you will never learn anything. Do the research. Do the work. Your plot will be better for it.
A lot of times the research though, provides you with facts and technicalities that will not help the plot though. So maybe it's better off not going by the facts, if they get in the way, maybe?
Actually, I think "write what you know" is sage advice.
Screenwriting is very difficult. Nobody is just naturally-gifted at it. Not nearly enough credit is given to screenwriters, as this foundation will absolutely make or break your project. A solid screenplay is so incredibly crucial, and it can't be faked, in any way whatsoever.
Anyway, your screenwriting is going to require a great deal of practice, just to work out the kinks of basic storytelling. By simply tapping your fingers on a keyboard, with the end-goal being a screenplay, you've already got your work cut out for you.
Why would you add to that massive workload by trying to write a story that you know nothing about? Writing what you know isn't for all screenwriters; it's for rookie screenwriters who haven't yet found their voice. The logic behind the advice is that you shouldn't bite off more than you can chew.
Eventually, you can dive into stuff that requires some research, but in the beginning, I think it's best to just stay in familiar territory.
By the way, I think it's a mistake to think this issue mostly revolves around factual details. I think it's mostly about characters, dialogue, and motivation, because that's what your audience will ultimately connect with.
Screenwriting is very difficult. Nobody is just naturally-gifted at it. Not nearly enough credit is given to screenwriters, as this foundation will absolutely make or break your project. A solid screenplay is so incredibly crucial, and it can't be faked, in any way whatsoever.
Anyway, your screenwriting is going to require a great deal of practice, just to work out the kinks of basic storytelling. By simply tapping your fingers on a keyboard, with the end-goal being a screenplay, you've already got your work cut out for you.
Why would you add to that massive workload by trying to write a story that you know nothing about? Writing what you know isn't for all screenwriters; it's for rookie screenwriters who haven't yet found their voice. The logic behind the advice is that you shouldn't bite off more than you can chew.
Eventually, you can dive into stuff that requires some research, but in the beginning, I think it's best to just stay in familiar territory.
By the way, I think it's a mistake to think this issue mostly revolves around factual details. I think it's mostly about characters, dialogue, and motivation, because that's what your audience will ultimately connect with.
I believe you're taking "Write what you know" a little too literally.
Write what you know, ofcourse. It's what you know best. But open your mind, and learn knew things. Know, new things. Write what you know. (Or learnt to a good enough standard to merit a strong story)
Research is everything. It's authenticity. It's content. It's your characters surroundings. It's knowing the era. What was going on at that particular time, in that particular place. It's giving your story depth. All of these elements are for the benefit of creating the illusion. The illusion that these events are real. Give the audience everything you can.
I'd suggest you do the research. Especially if your screenplay has any elements of "reality" and "everyday life".
Write what you know, ofcourse. It's what you know best. But open your mind, and learn knew things. Know, new things. Write what you know. (Or learnt to a good enough standard to merit a strong story)
Research is everything. It's authenticity. It's content. It's your characters surroundings. It's knowing the era. What was going on at that particular time, in that particular place. It's giving your story depth. All of these elements are for the benefit of creating the illusion. The illusion that these events are real. Give the audience everything you can.
I'd suggest you do the research. Especially if your screenplay has any elements of "reality" and "everyday life".
Don't always just "write what you know". I mean, I'm not sure how old you are but, if you're like me and you're only 16 or something, you won't "know" much to write about.
Instead, I recommend writing what you LIKE. I do that with short stories and I enjoy it because it's something I like so it can bring out the best in me. The same applies to my script writing.
Instead, I recommend writing what you LIKE. I do that with short stories and I enjoy it because it's something I like so it can bring out the best in me. The same applies to my script writing.
"Write what you know" is almost always taken too literally. It has more to do with character interactions than facts in a story. Facts can be researched and learned. Writing what you know means writing characters in a way that's realistic. Think about how people interact with one another, and make sure your characters are acting in a way that is real for them.
I've got a novel writing background, and this is probably one of the most hotly-debated subjects in that world. The general consensus (if there can ever be such a thing) is that you have to draw on your own experiences to create characters and worlds that are "real" even if they're completely imaginary.
I've got a novel writing background, and this is probably one of the most hotly-debated subjects in that world. The general consensus (if there can ever be such a thing) is that you have to draw on your own experiences to create characters and worlds that are "real" even if they're completely imaginary.
Yes. Like folks have been saying, "write what you know" is not just "write only about things that have happened to you or you are an expert in." Writing what you know can also include learning about a subject. Research is a huge part of writing, with few exceptions.
So I would say actually take that time and do the research to get the techno-babble right. You want your movie to be the best it can be, right?
So I would say actually take that time and do the research to get the techno-babble right. You want your movie to be the best it can be, right?
I believe “write what you know” is terrible advice.
You need to take a step back from all of this for a minute.
The meat of a story - be it a novel, a play or a movie - is the characters and their interactions. Everything else is context. So writing what you know means putting forth your insights into the human mind, spirit and soul. You can research and learn the context, although first-hand experience gives greater depth and flavor.
Take any of our favorite films; how many people actually, literally know anything about a Galaxy a long time ago and far, far away? The context is a complete fabrication, but the characters feel real to us. But the technology, history, and politics of that artificial construct was well thought out and also feels real because it was based upon history/politics with which we are all emotionally familiar.
When it comes to reality based stories your audience will be more familiar with the details. Crime dramas are so pervasive in our society that you have to adhere very closely to that reality - knowing actual police and legal procedures. - or else you will pull your audience out of the story.
So, to sum up, you have to "know" people, they have to feel real - "I know a guy like that." The context can be learned.
The meat of a story - be it a novel, a play or a movie - is the characters and their interactions. Everything else is context. So writing what you know means putting forth your insights into the human mind, spirit and soul. You can research and learn the context, although first-hand experience gives greater depth and flavor.
Take any of our favorite films; how many people actually, literally know anything about a Galaxy a long time ago and far, far away? The context is a complete fabrication, but the characters feel real to us. But the technology, history, and politics of that artificial construct was well thought out and also feels real because it was based upon history/politics with which we are all emotionally familiar.
When it comes to reality based stories your audience will be more familiar with the details. Crime dramas are so pervasive in our society that you have to adhere very closely to that reality - knowing actual police and legal procedures. - or else you will pull your audience out of the story.
So, to sum up, you have to "know" people, they have to feel real - "I know a guy like that." The context can be learned.
See above.
'Write what you know' refers to the emotional core of the story, not to the plot.
It is very good advice.
'Write what you know' refers to the emotional core of the story, not to the plot.
It is very good advice.
Agree with most of the above, I think it is more relevant to emotions and very subjective "human" experiences. You can't (or perhaps more precisely, it is very difficult to) write about the pain of addiction or losing a loved one or the realisation your relationship is built on a foundation of lies, without having experienced these feelings first-hand. For happier examples think of the birth of your child, falling in love or reconciling with a sibling after twenty years of animosity.
For the technicalities of a profession or the laws that are enforced in a particular country or anything "solid" that requires rigid facts, you can get away with doing research, the more the better. For example, you don't have to be a policeman to write a screenplay involving the police, but talking to cops and doing research into laws, regulations and procedures will make your film more believable, especially to real life cops watching it.
For the technicalities of a profession or the laws that are enforced in a particular country or anything "solid" that requires rigid facts, you can get away with doing research, the more the better. For example, you don't have to be a policeman to write a screenplay involving the police, but talking to cops and doing research into laws, regulations and procedures will make your film more believable, especially to real life cops watching it.
I need to explore the emotional core of a story that I have never
known. If I limited myself to writing what I know emotionally I
would limit what I can write. As SiCurious points out I could never
write about the emotional connection with a child because I have
never known fatherhood. Sure, I could write from the child's perspective
but not from the fathers. Too limiting. I could write about reconciling
with a sibling after twenty years of animosity because I have never
had any animosity towards my sister. Too limiting. I could never write
about the emotional core of facing imminent death from killer or a
monster because, while I have some understanding death, I have never
faced imminent death. Too limiting.
It's terrible advice.
known. If I limited myself to writing what I know emotionally I
would limit what I can write. As SiCurious points out I could never
write about the emotional connection with a child because I have
never known fatherhood. Sure, I could write from the child's perspective
but not from the fathers. Too limiting. I could write about reconciling
with a sibling after twenty years of animosity because I have never
had any animosity towards my sister. Too limiting. I could never write
about the emotional core of facing imminent death from killer or a
monster because, while I have some understanding death, I have never
faced imminent death. Too limiting.
It's terrible advice.
I wonder if George Lucas experienced The Force and Jar Jar Binks much the same way as told in his stories?
You don't really think JKRowling really knows how to cast spells, being a mudblood and all?
LoTR?
Time Traveler's Wife?
Currious Case of Brad's Pit Buttons?
Black Swan! Gospel Truth!
Blair Sand Witch.
I have Open Water, Cabin Fever & Inception DVDs layin' around the house for later next week. Surely those are personal experiences.
(Pokemon! Spy Kids! James and the Giant Peach, anything Tim Burton touched [Including Mrs. Burton!]).
Regarding emotional ranges... how old do you gotta be before you cover pretty much all of them? Old enough to make a movie? Not an issue.
Not too many high schoolers writing/filming about the joys of childbirth and parenthood, which s'plains most of th zombie/war stuff they put out. Go with what you know + a little extra somethin'.
You don't really think JKRowling really knows how to cast spells, being a mudblood and all?
LoTR?
Time Traveler's Wife?
Currious Case of Brad's Pit Buttons?
Black Swan! Gospel Truth!
Blair Sand Witch.
I have Open Water, Cabin Fever & Inception DVDs layin' around the house for later next week. Surely those are personal experiences.
(Pokemon! Spy Kids! James and the Giant Peach, anything Tim Burton touched [Including Mrs. Burton!]).
Regarding emotional ranges... how old do you gotta be before you cover pretty much all of them? Old enough to make a movie? Not an issue.
Not too many high schoolers writing/filming about the joys of childbirth and parenthood, which s'plains most of th zombie/war stuff they put out. Go with what you know + a little extra somethin'.
Last edited:
I'm still going to disagree.
In a father/son relationship the physical components are the father and the son but, thematically speaking, you can draw emotions for that relationship from all sorts of places. Anyone who has ever loved someone, been disappointed by someone, idolized someone...etc has experienced, by proxy, a father/son relationship.
To draw on a personal example: several people have made the assumption with my recent short that I used to work at Woolworths. It's not an unreasonable assumption but, unfortunately, it's not true. Still the themes that I wanted to get across in the film where themes that I had experienced, despite the fact that I have never been fired from a job in my life. What I had to do was some research in order to contextualize what I wanted to get across and, all in all, I was fairly happy with the result.
I actually think that you can write pretty much anything, but I think in order to write well you need to frame it from the point of view of things that you do know. There are certain exceptions (particularly movies based on recent and subjective history) where I think that you might need to personally have interacted with the events to write about them, but all in all if you're an average human being, with an average emotional range then you've got all the things you need to write any story.
But I still think that you need to focus that by writing about things that you actually know.
I'm not entirely sure that we're all on the same page, as far as the meaning behind the advice to "write what you know". I feel like we all have different ideas about what it means, and who the advice is given for.
I'll try not to be too redundant with my first post, but I feel a need to clarify my understanding of it. And I'm not saying my understanding is the correct understanding, just saying that this is my impression I've gotten about the advice.
I've never heard anyone use this advice to apply to all writers. Is there anyone who thinks that all writers should write what they know? Perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression, but any time I've heard anyone give that advice, they were strictly directing it at inexperienced writers. And for that narrow audience, I do think there is some valid logic behind it.
Before I explain the reasoning behind it, as I understand it, let me first point out that my first feature was about a psychic superhero. Not only do I not know anything about that, but I don't believe in psychics. Prior to that, my most recent writing was a 20-page short about a pair of space-aliens scouting Earth for a future invasion. Obvsiously, I don't "know" that. So, I do think the phrase can be translated too literally. Forgot to mention -- I do consider myself a fairly inexperienced writer, so the advice would apply to me.
However, here's the logic behind it. Or, at least how I see it. Let me make an anology. Let's say you're a director. You've always had an affinity for Sci-Fi. It's the genre you get most excited about watching, and the genre that you have most of your filmmaking ideas in. So, over the course of your life, you're probably going to make a lot of Sci-Fi.
That doesn't mean you want to exclusively make Sci-Fi, forever. You might have plans to make an Historical Drama. You might have plans to make a Western. Maybe you want to make a Samurai Movie. Now, every movie is difficult to make, but I think it reasonable to assume that each of these non-Sci-Fi movies are going to be an added challenge, because you're outside of your comfort zone. It's probably going to require an even greater effort on your behalf.
So, all that being said, if you're choosing your very first feature, which potential project should you choose? I kind of think that it makes perfect sense to stay in your comfort-zone on your first feature (and maybe even your 2nd). This filmmaking thing has a pretty steep learning curve, might as well make things less difficult on yourself, in the beginning.
Later on, once your confidence has built, you feel more secure in what you're doing, then it's time to stretch your wings and make that Historical Drama.
Anyway, for me, "write what you know" embodies the same spirit. Though my first feature screenplay involved some outlandish stuff that I don't "know", the characters that inhabit it are very close to my life experiences. That doesn't mean that all of my movies are always going to be populated by the same schmucks, of course not. Heck, I plan on eventually writing a coming-of-age story, with a Japanese teennage lead, set during WWII. Uhh, I don't "know" that.
For my first feature, though, as much effort as was required to piece together a screenplay that would even remotely resemble a solid screenplay, I'm glad that I didn't have any grand over-reaching story or character elements.
I'll try not to be too redundant with my first post, but I feel a need to clarify my understanding of it. And I'm not saying my understanding is the correct understanding, just saying that this is my impression I've gotten about the advice.
I've never heard anyone use this advice to apply to all writers. Is there anyone who thinks that all writers should write what they know? Perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression, but any time I've heard anyone give that advice, they were strictly directing it at inexperienced writers. And for that narrow audience, I do think there is some valid logic behind it.
Before I explain the reasoning behind it, as I understand it, let me first point out that my first feature was about a psychic superhero. Not only do I not know anything about that, but I don't believe in psychics. Prior to that, my most recent writing was a 20-page short about a pair of space-aliens scouting Earth for a future invasion. Obvsiously, I don't "know" that. So, I do think the phrase can be translated too literally. Forgot to mention -- I do consider myself a fairly inexperienced writer, so the advice would apply to me.
However, here's the logic behind it. Or, at least how I see it. Let me make an anology. Let's say you're a director. You've always had an affinity for Sci-Fi. It's the genre you get most excited about watching, and the genre that you have most of your filmmaking ideas in. So, over the course of your life, you're probably going to make a lot of Sci-Fi.
That doesn't mean you want to exclusively make Sci-Fi, forever. You might have plans to make an Historical Drama. You might have plans to make a Western. Maybe you want to make a Samurai Movie. Now, every movie is difficult to make, but I think it reasonable to assume that each of these non-Sci-Fi movies are going to be an added challenge, because you're outside of your comfort zone. It's probably going to require an even greater effort on your behalf.
So, all that being said, if you're choosing your very first feature, which potential project should you choose? I kind of think that it makes perfect sense to stay in your comfort-zone on your first feature (and maybe even your 2nd). This filmmaking thing has a pretty steep learning curve, might as well make things less difficult on yourself, in the beginning.
Later on, once your confidence has built, you feel more secure in what you're doing, then it's time to stretch your wings and make that Historical Drama.
Anyway, for me, "write what you know" embodies the same spirit. Though my first feature screenplay involved some outlandish stuff that I don't "know", the characters that inhabit it are very close to my life experiences. That doesn't mean that all of my movies are always going to be populated by the same schmucks, of course not. Heck, I plan on eventually writing a coming-of-age story, with a Japanese teennage lead, set during WWII. Uhh, I don't "know" that.
For my first feature, though, as much effort as was required to piece together a screenplay that would even remotely resemble a solid screenplay, I'm glad that I didn't have any grand over-reaching story or character elements.
Agreed. I think you start out on what you know in terms of what's driven you to write in the first place, and as you get more confident you begin to look for ways to continue to drive yourself and grow creatively. You don't want to get stuck in a rut, but you don't want ambition to be your undoing either.
Well for my first, and only finished feature length screenplay so far, I had to a lot of police/legal research to get all the facts right, for a serious thriller. But the research literally took me two years, along with my other jobs, and I had to keep re-imagining the story, to make it all fit. That can be a lot time to write and the road blocks kept making me stumped. I would like my new script to proceed more quickly.
I have been researching the facts so far, but some of them really don't serve the twists and outcome I have in mind for my story, and thought about just tweaking the facts and making things up to make it fit. Otherwise you're stuck doing so much research into technicalities just to get everything right. I will do more research but it's hard to come up with a story that works in your favor, realistically, if you get real technical with it. So how do I approach this?
I have been researching the facts so far, but some of them really don't serve the twists and outcome I have in mind for my story, and thought about just tweaking the facts and making things up to make it fit. Otherwise you're stuck doing so much research into technicalities just to get everything right. I will do more research but it's hard to come up with a story that works in your favor, realistically, if you get real technical with it. So how do I approach this?