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
There's some good advice and some thoughtful ideas to chew on already offered on this thread so far. I'll probably only be restating some of the things that have been posted. I guess I'll chip in anyways.
I find things to agree with from other posters all 'round. I empathize with directorik's distrust of the axiom, write what you know, and I also agree with posters like papertwin and cracker to some degree or other.
My favorite book about writing, that I've read so far (and one of my favorite books, period), happens to be Steven King's On Writing. In it he addresses the write what you know question. What he says is that you should write the truth, as in, with authenticity, meaning honestly, that is to say, from what you do know about the world and about life.
He says that you should intrepret write what you know:
A couple pages later he writes:
Later in the book he describes his process for writing his novel, From a Buick 8. He didn't do extensive research into the procedures or culture of the the state police of Western Pennsylvania before he wrote the first draft. He believes in just writing the first draft out without worrying about rewriting or research. He thinks that at first you just want to get that story out. Then, when he was ready to rewrite, he realized that he did need to find something out about those procedures and culture if only, as he says, to impart some verisimilitude to the story.
I realize that King is a novelist, not a screenwriter. Maybe the needs of screenwriting are different enough from novel writing that King's advice won't work for it. For instance, the one instructional book on screenwriting that I have pretty much says that you do need to plot your story out. I dunno. But your question wasn't about whether to plot or to not plot.
I can relate to your personal story about your previous screenplay taking two years and multiple re-imaginings. I had the seeds of the idea for a story (an ambitious ahistorical fantasy set in ancient China) approaching two decades ago. After years of half-assed research and dreaming about it...thinking that I always needed more research and knowledge before I could write something worthwhile, I hooked up with an artist who wanted to illustrate it as a graphic novel. I made a push to get what more research I felt necessary so that I could finally write the damn thing. I started trying to plot it out. Mistake. Well, the artist got tired of waiting and went on to other things. I came to the realization that this particular baby of mine was D.O.A --DEAD ON ARRIVAL. After years of approaching it with the belief that I needed to become something of an authority on the subject before even beginning it pretty thoroughly killed it for me. It had become a lifeless, passionless project. So I guess the moral of the story for me is that a research first approach can end up being a heavy anchor that can sink the storytelling before it even gets out of the port. If I still want to write that ambitious ahistorical fantasy set in ancient China, then I'm going to have to try the King approach and just start writing it. But it won't be quite that putrefied story I had thought it would be. Later, I can go back and plug holes with more research if I have to. Heheh. Or not?
[EDIT]: Changed a couple words for readability.
I find things to agree with from other posters all 'round. I empathize with directorik's distrust of the axiom, write what you know, and I also agree with posters like papertwin and cracker to some degree or other.
My favorite book about writing, that I've read so far (and one of my favorite books, period), happens to be Steven King's On Writing. In it he addresses the write what you know question. What he says is that you should write the truth, as in, with authenticity, meaning honestly, that is to say, from what you do know about the world and about life.
He says that you should intrepret write what you know:
A couple pages later he writes:
Later in the book he describes his process for writing his novel, From a Buick 8. He didn't do extensive research into the procedures or culture of the the state police of Western Pennsylvania before he wrote the first draft. He believes in just writing the first draft out without worrying about rewriting or research. He thinks that at first you just want to get that story out. Then, when he was ready to rewrite, he realized that he did need to find something out about those procedures and culture if only, as he says, to impart some verisimilitude to the story.
I realize that King is a novelist, not a screenwriter. Maybe the needs of screenwriting are different enough from novel writing that King's advice won't work for it. For instance, the one instructional book on screenwriting that I have pretty much says that you do need to plot your story out. I dunno. But your question wasn't about whether to plot or to not plot.
I can relate to your personal story about your previous screenplay taking two years and multiple re-imaginings. I had the seeds of the idea for a story (an ambitious ahistorical fantasy set in ancient China) approaching two decades ago. After years of half-assed research and dreaming about it...thinking that I always needed more research and knowledge before I could write something worthwhile, I hooked up with an artist who wanted to illustrate it as a graphic novel. I made a push to get what more research I felt necessary so that I could finally write the damn thing. I started trying to plot it out. Mistake. Well, the artist got tired of waiting and went on to other things. I came to the realization that this particular baby of mine was D.O.A --DEAD ON ARRIVAL. After years of approaching it with the belief that I needed to become something of an authority on the subject before even beginning it pretty thoroughly killed it for me. It had become a lifeless, passionless project. So I guess the moral of the story for me is that a research first approach can end up being a heavy anchor that can sink the storytelling before it even gets out of the port. If I still want to write that ambitious ahistorical fantasy set in ancient China, then I'm going to have to try the King approach and just start writing it. But it won't be quite that putrefied story I had thought it would be. Later, I can go back and plug holes with more research if I have to. Heheh. Or not?
[EDIT]: Changed a couple words for readability.
Last edited:
I agree that there are several ways to interpret the axiom. And that makes all the difference.
No, I'm sure George Lucas didn't know a creature like Jar Jar Binks, but I bet he knew a friend, a relative, a co-worker, a fictional character from a novel or a movie who, perhaps their personalities combined in some kind of synthesis, or perhaps even without any dilution, resembled Jar Jar Binks. He knew Jar Jar Binks in that sense. When Jar Jar Binks acted or spoke or refrained from acting or speaking in response to stimulus from other characters or his environment, Lucas knew what he would do or not do.
I don't read the axiom to be an attack on the imagination or a warning against fresh and creative ideas, but rather as an entreaty to a deep understanding of character and motive when writing.
No, I'm sure George Lucas didn't know a creature like Jar Jar Binks, but I bet he knew a friend, a relative, a co-worker, a fictional character from a novel or a movie who, perhaps their personalities combined in some kind of synthesis, or perhaps even without any dilution, resembled Jar Jar Binks. He knew Jar Jar Binks in that sense. When Jar Jar Binks acted or spoke or refrained from acting or speaking in response to stimulus from other characters or his environment, Lucas knew what he would do or not do.
I don't read the axiom to be an attack on the imagination or a warning against fresh and creative ideas, but rather as an entreaty to a deep understanding of character and motive when writing.
Why don't you just write something and see how it turns out. Learn by doing?
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
I find “write what you know” limiting. As a writer I thrive on
writing what I don’t know. It’s what drives me. So it’s natural
that I would feel it’s terrible advice.
I fully understand the difference between the story and the
emotional core. Of course no one “knows” about light sabers and 12
year old spies, killer cars and casting spells; and I agree that
isn’t what “write what you know” means.
To suggest that a writer - even a young writer - limit their
writing to what they know strikes me as foolish. And limiting.
Never, ever limit yourself to writing what you know. Expand and
explore the emotional core of a story even if it’s far beyond your
personal experience.
It’s foolish advice.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)
I find “write what you know” limiting. As a writer I thrive on
writing what I don’t know. It’s what drives me. So it’s natural
that I would feel it’s terrible advice.
I fully understand the difference between the story and the
emotional core. Of course no one “knows” about light sabers and 12
year old spies, killer cars and casting spells; and I agree that
isn’t what “write what you know” means.
To suggest that a writer - even a young writer - limit their
writing to what they know strikes me as foolish. And limiting.
Never, ever limit yourself to writing what you know. Expand and
explore the emotional core of a story even if it’s far beyond your
personal experience.
It’s foolish advice.
If you read and research a lot, you will know a lot, then you can write a lot.
I think it also has a lot to do with your interests. I have always been into espionage/military films with more realism than fluff, and now I'm living in the Sudan and have stared down the barrel of an AK-47, been corralled into a tribal prison, and narrowly avoided landmines many times. My social circles and circumstances have very much aligned with those of the characters I know and love in spy and military movies, so now when I write those stories, the realism and intensity is going to pop out that much more. I guess I'm a method-writer in that way.
A while back, I wrote my second novel (as of yet unpublished) and had to do a TON of research. The story was a espionage/comedy about a globe-trotting, wisecracking assassin. And after all my research and hard work trying to get straight as many of the geographical/cultural facts straight as possible, I ended up actually GOING to most of those locations myself, and wow, was I wrong. My point is this: research can only (MAYBE) get you to an intellectual understanding of something, and sometimes, that understanding isn't enough to write with.
It really depends on the movie. I wouldn't, for example, begin writing a serious war epic until I'd done a full year of intense research, especially TALKING to people who had fought in it.
A while back, I wrote my second novel (as of yet unpublished) and had to do a TON of research. The story was a espionage/comedy about a globe-trotting, wisecracking assassin. And after all my research and hard work trying to get straight as many of the geographical/cultural facts straight as possible, I ended up actually GOING to most of those locations myself, and wow, was I wrong. My point is this: research can only (MAYBE) get you to an intellectual understanding of something, and sometimes, that understanding isn't enough to write with.
It really depends on the movie. I wouldn't, for example, begin writing a serious war epic until I'd done a full year of intense research, especially TALKING to people who had fought in it.
I don't think you necessarily need to talk to me people who have fought in the war. Braveheart was a hit, but of course it was impossible to talk to any real people who fought in the war. If you can do that, then you don't necessarily need to talk to people who fought in a modern war, just so long as you do reading perhaps.
Last edited:
One more way of looking at it might be know your characters.
For each one, they have to come to life as real people with all their strengths and weaknesses.
What is their temperament? Are they introverted or extroverted? Do they have patience or are they quick to anger? Are they opinionated? Do they have unhealthy habits? Relationships, etc.
You know them so well as fictional people, you can answer questions on how they would react to a given conflict with 100% accuracy and continuity and give meaning to a character arc if that character is so assigned.
IMO, who the characters are is as important, if not more important, than what they do for the audience to have a reaction to them.
For each one, they have to come to life as real people with all their strengths and weaknesses.
What is their temperament? Are they introverted or extroverted? Do they have patience or are they quick to anger? Are they opinionated? Do they have unhealthy habits? Relationships, etc.
You know them so well as fictional people, you can answer questions on how they would react to a given conflict with 100% accuracy and continuity and give meaning to a character arc if that character is so assigned.
IMO, who the characters are is as important, if not more important, than what they do for the audience to have a reaction to them.
For sure you are interpreting the axiom too literally. As axioms go, it's a vague one though. I've always interpreted it merely as writing about things you feel strongly about. For example, I've never flown an F18, but I think they're pretty cool, so if a story idea about f18's hit me, I'd love to write it even though I know little about them (at the moment). On the other hand, I happen to know a lot about emergency medicine, but have no desire to write about it. So for me, the former would be writing what I know, the latter not.
We all know a lot more than we realize. And all the answers have held the issue up and looked at it from all conceivable angles. Screenwriters--all writers at heart really--are storytellers. Stories are not about events and details but desires and relationships. E-Motion is what sets Events into Motion.
A loves B and B leaves A for C. B now copes with the love and loss.
The gender of A, B, and C -- male, female, animal, object, idea, etc. varies as does time and setting.
However, the "classic love story" remains.
Coming into a movie, the audience has no clue about the world they are stepping into, but they "know" emotion. And that is the primary instrument of the writer as storyteller. Suspense, horror, passion, etc. all come from what is desired and the paths that lead to it or deny it.
Even before I became a father, I could imagine having a son or daughter. And it's funny how that works. I would see someone at McDonald's or the park playing with a kid and think what does it feel like to be the kid? And as the father? And you know, holding my sister's kid, it brings thoughts and associations into my head. Sometimes I think writers believe that imagination is in the details, when it's really about the feelings.
Now, having said that, there are lots of movies which do require research. In European languages, there are two ways of 'knowing'--knowing facts (saber, wissen, savoir) and "knowing about/acquainted" (conocer, kennen, connaitre). A good screenplay uses both forms of knowing. In the end, though, the audience is more able to relate to the 'feeling' side. Anyone who thinks "House" is how real doctors (even good ones) should approach diagnosis and treatment would be sadly dead. The same for many police and law shows. It's the characters and situations--not the legal details--that carry the story. You need to write to the general knowledge level of your audience unless its meant to enlighten.
You should only write what you can believe and feel. If you can do those, your storytelling will take the reader/viewer where ever your characters take them. If you can't convince me that you believe it or feel it's real, as a reader/viewer, the story/movie doesn't make the grade, no matter how clever or well researched. I think screenwriters would benefit from an acting class. Learning to step into another role, especially one different from yourself, helps you to step inside characters.
As the White Queen advised Alice in "Through the Looking Glass", she 'could believe six impossible things before breakfast' and encouraged Alice to do the same. It certainly is good advice for screenwriters. Can you believe your the father of twin girls? Believe that you can transfer your consciousness into an alien species and what it would be like? Or imagine finding an small alien in your garden shed? -- What would it feel like as a single father raising them? What would you experience with the new senses having a tail? How would you hide the fact from your mom being only seven? You might have to sit on the floor to get reacquainted with (re-'know') an old perspective--it's a different world being 4 ft (~120 cm) again.
But realize that the aphorism applies to only one piece of screenwriting--the story. The other two pieces are format and structure. Poor dialogue, Poor pacing, poor development have less to do with 'knowing' and more with 'crafting'.
@harmonica44: I actually think that what this thread best illustrates is the danger and impracticality of asking lots of broad, subjective questions on an Internet forum. Everyone is talking about roughly the same thing but from different angles that don't quite come across. It's much better that you work out some of these things for yourself.
Well for example the villain is my current script is very complex in the strange crimes she is committing. I still don't have an explanation for why she's doing it, but I knew she had to do it, to fit the plot. So in this case, I am coming up with the character to fit the plot afterwords. So I will know the character once I have figured out her motives.
Just for the fun of it, sit down and write a short bio for that character. Not only might it give you some guidelines for writing her part, the actor who is portraying her can try to become that person instead of just making something up on the spot with little thought involved.
I am have been thinking up a little bio, but haven't found one yet to go with it. But will keep thinking as I write the script. What about doing research when it comes to police rank? For example there are two main cop characters. One is the comissioner, the other a detective. The ranks are very far apart, but for the movie's sake, the commisioner will be constantly giving orders to the detective, directly, rather than having so many other channels of characters to go through. Plus writing micro-budget helps if I only have a few cop characters doing everything in the plot. So will this come off as too unrealistic?
Well I don't have to have the titles be correct I guess, but I might as well have some since the cops refer to one another by rank once in a while. Is it realistic enough though, that these two cops are handling so much of everything, when normally at least 20 cops I'm guessing would be doing all the work?
You don't have to explain why your criminal does what she does; crazy people live in their own delusional worlds.
As far as your commissioner/detective relationship they were partners in the past - experienced street cop & rookie, for example - so there's an established level of trust and familiarity that lasts through promotions, etc. In every organization the "boss" has favorites to whom s/he can turn for honest opinions, advice and is a good shoulder to cry on - or at least an ear to bitch too.
As a part of your research I would recommend that you go to a cop bar - every city and town has one - and buy drinks, tell them you're writing a script and want real life background info. I can tell you from experience that cops love to talk about their work, and most are actually pretty cool people. Just remember that you must respect their confidences, always ask if you can use things. You should also contribute to the Silver Shield fund or whatever the local equivalent is. More than just getting background info for your script you'll make some good friends who can be a big help securing permits, locations and lots of other things plus keeping you out of serious trouble if you're shooting guerilla style.
Also, off duty cops make great security staff.
As far as your commissioner/detective relationship they were partners in the past - experienced street cop & rookie, for example - so there's an established level of trust and familiarity that lasts through promotions, etc. In every organization the "boss" has favorites to whom s/he can turn for honest opinions, advice and is a good shoulder to cry on - or at least an ear to bitch too.
As a part of your research I would recommend that you go to a cop bar - every city and town has one - and buy drinks, tell them you're writing a script and want real life background info. I can tell you from experience that cops love to talk about their work, and most are actually pretty cool people. Just remember that you must respect their confidences, always ask if you can use things. You should also contribute to the Silver Shield fund or whatever the local equivalent is. More than just getting background info for your script you'll make some good friends who can be a big help securing permits, locations and lots of other things plus keeping you out of serious trouble if you're shooting guerilla style.
Also, off duty cops make great security staff.
Last edited:
Yes I have thought about the security staff, thing. I'll ask around to see which bar is the cop bar. I too though that I don't have to explain the villain, but my friend read my treatment, and told me that if I have a villain who is doing these sort of things, it has to be explained or it will come off as shallow. But I will ask for some others opinions.
I wasn't implying that it be explained, just that it might help with the writing process and actor motivation with a little bit of history for creative eyes only. Defining the delusional world is important IMHO.
Then again, I'm not quite sure if my delusional world is entirely defined.
This stuff is so subjective to what works for us individually, I suppose.
Which version of the "truth" made your story better in the end, btw? The clinical researched one, or the actual visited one?
Very interesting thread.
