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
Some of the technical legal stuff I have researched, won't work for my story though. So I was thinking perhaps I can just make some of it up, to make it more interesting. How much of the law should a writer make up though, to avoid coming off as too fake? It's also hard to get all the facts, when a lot of law students where I live, did not learn much on national security laws.
It's a lot easier to research laws if you know the name of the law. For example, whether or not it is legal for the police to shoot a fleeing suspect, is called the Fleeing Felony Rule. If there is a website that has a list of all the specific names of laws, then it would be a lot easier to research them.
It's a lot easier to research laws if you know the name of the law. For example, whether or not it is legal for the police to shoot a fleeing suspect, is called the Fleeing Felony Rule. If there is a website that has a list of all the specific names of laws, then it would be a lot easier to research them.
Last edited:
I am always fascinated by how often you use "it's hard"
and "it's not easy" in all your posts.
and "it's not easy" in all your posts.
Dude, if THEY don't know, why are you racking yourself on this? Make it up. Geez, we deal in smoke and mirrors! You'll take all the fun out of writing if you make it too analytical. That or you should write documentaries! If it's a fun a romp as you suggest, no one is going to care if some of its faked to keep the story/action line going.
Have fun with it. Write the damn thing, then go back and have people critique it. I like Directorik's observation.
I wouldn't call my plot a 'fun romp' but sure, I will make it up if I have to. There is a scene, which technically would take place in a court room realistically, but I was thinking of writing it in a prosecutor's office, since it's microbudget. An office is a lot easier to film in then a big room that is either a real court room, which can be difficult to shoot in, or a set. So in the prosecutor's office, he will be talking to the accused, and the witness, who is testifying against the accused. The witness and the accused will be in the same office and the prosecutor will be getting answers out of both of them on their stories. Now normally this would be done, in court, with a judge and a court reporter, but here the prosecutor is doing it all himself in his own office. Quite the conflict of interest, but I can make it up to save on budget. Is that too made up though, or at what point does their become a limit of 'too made up' for a serious thriller?
Last edited:
Well if you treat it as matter of fact and it is in line with your story, the audience won't care. However, in this situation, it is conceivable that the Attorney General's office would invoke national security and request the case be heard in chambers, or the Judge's private office. Typically only the attorneys appear to argue the case before the judge. Unless there is a compelling reason to have the witness and accused in the same room, you could have one on a close circuit camera--say the witness who is testifying from prison.
Now you have:
Code:
INT. JUDGE'S CHAMBERS - DAY
The judge sits behind his desk. In front of him the Prosecuter, the
Defense attorney, and the defendant. To the side is a MONITOR for
videoconferencing.
JUDGE
This is highly irregular, Mr. Prosecuter, but I have
read the circumstances involving National Security.
PROSECUTOR
Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE
(to Defense)
And your client agrees to this?
DEFENSE
We do your honor.
INT. PRISON CONFERENCE ROOM - DAY (ON MONITOR)
An inmate is led in cuffed and dropped into a chair set at a table.
He looks up at the camera and gives a toothy grin.
INT. JUDGE'S CHAMBERS - DAY (CONTINUOUS)
PROSECUTOR
Can you hear us, Mr. Inmate?
ON THE MONITOR
INMATE
Loud and clear.
There is static on the monitor.
It clears and the inmate sprawls back, eyes wide, a bullet
to the head.
IN CHAMBERS
The Defendant smiles at the Prosecutor.
DEFENDANT
Your next witness?
...Is it legal? I don't know. This seems legal, we have all the key players--judge, prosecutor, defense, witness, and defendant. "In the same room" but not. It ends there. The writing should be about the story and action. As long as it has a semblance of what the ordinary person would expect, small points of law will be ignored.
Okay, it's just after the serious fact-finding of such serious terrorism thrillers from before, I felt I had some fact-finding standard to meet perhaps. So why would national security be invoked though in this scenario? The media already knows about the defendant being charged and it's a high publicity case. Unless of course the judge wants to keep it from the media, even though it's just a hearing.
Last edited:
I'll do what was suggested before and research the facts, but don't get bogged down in them. Are there any good screenwriting books for learning this stuff? I have one police procedure for writers, that has done some good, but any good legal court ones, that deal with very unlikely scenarios such as these? Anyone read the book Order in the Court: A Writer's Guide to the Legal System?
Last edited:
Just reading through the thread, my two cents (coming from someone in a mask, your mileage may vary 
):
The impression I'm getting is you're writing something, and it seems like your torn between writing it "your way" vs writing a way that you are trying not to get picked apart for details of how "real" it is.
I like the advice that was given of just write it-don't worry right off the top if it's exact or whatever. Once you get it written, then see how it flows.
I love the comment made about Smoke and Mirrors-that is what we deal in-and I think unless you're determined to write that "gritty realistic" story from all angles, maybe try and take it easy on yourself for a bit, just write what feels natural. You can always edit afterwards, but again, I get the impression you're trying to make this "right" the first write through-and that be being too hard on yourself.
Anyway, that's my .0002. It is a fascinating thread, and as this thread goes along, it's interesting to see what life it takes.
):The impression I'm getting is you're writing something, and it seems like your torn between writing it "your way" vs writing a way that you are trying not to get picked apart for details of how "real" it is.
I like the advice that was given of just write it-don't worry right off the top if it's exact or whatever. Once you get it written, then see how it flows.
I love the comment made about Smoke and Mirrors-that is what we deal in-and I think unless you're determined to write that "gritty realistic" story from all angles, maybe try and take it easy on yourself for a bit, just write what feels natural. You can always edit afterwards, but again, I get the impression you're trying to make this "right" the first write through-and that be being too hard on yourself.
Anyway, that's my .0002. It is a fascinating thread, and as this thread goes along, it's interesting to see what life it takes.
Harmonica, no one on this forum has the slightest clue about your story's details. You ask questions based on the backstory in your head to which we aren't privvy. You come across as a clever, able writer.
Make something up--kidnapping, blackmail, covert ops identities, revealing national secrets, etc. Often times a "request" is made with no justification other than "you are to follow orders." Can judges be intimidated? You betcha'. The viewer isn't necessarily more privileged than your characters. Would your prosecutor know why the judge made this unusual request? If not, there's no reason for the audience to know either. At some later point, it can come out if you feel it's necessary. But it doesn't have to. Just resolve the emotions and behaviors that result because of it.
If the Attorney General tells one of his prosecutors to not pursue charges, the prosecutor may be puzzled but may not necessarily receive a justification and must simply comply.
Make something up--kidnapping, blackmail, covert ops identities, revealing national secrets, etc. Often times a "request" is made with no justification other than "you are to follow orders." Can judges be intimidated? You betcha'. The viewer isn't necessarily more privileged than your characters. Would your prosecutor know why the judge made this unusual request? If not, there's no reason for the audience to know either. At some later point, it can come out if you feel it's necessary. But it doesn't have to. Just resolve the emotions and behaviors that result because of it.
If the Attorney General tells one of his prosecutors to not pursue charges, the prosecutor may be puzzled but may not necessarily receive a justification and must simply comply.
If you want an idea on how to really get a good political/bureaucratic spy/backroom/double-triple crossing covert type of story, read anything by Ludlum (Bourne Identity)-I mean ANYTHING by him (my favorite work by him was The Chancellor Manuscript)-would give you a good idea how "backroom" things can happen in very optically legally plausable situations.
Just reading through the thread, my two cents (coming from someone in a mask, your mileage may vary
The impression I'm getting is you're writing something, and it seems like your torn between writing it "your way" vs writing a way that you are trying not to get picked apart for details of how "real" it is.
I like the advice that was given of just write it-don't worry right off the top if it's exact or whatever. Once you get it written, then see how it flows.
I love the comment made about Smoke and Mirrors-that is what we deal in-and I think unless you're determined to write that "gritty realistic" story from all angles, maybe try and take it easy on yourself for a bit, just write what feels natural. You can always edit afterwards, but again, I get the impression you're trying to make this "right" the first write through-and that be being too hard on yourself.
Anyway, that's my .0002. It is a fascinating thread, and as this thread goes along, it's interesting to see what life it takes.
But if I write the script now, then research the details afterwords that could change a lot of the story, so isn't it better to know the facts before writing it out? My first screenplay, I wrote the whole thing naturally, my way. Then I did the research after and ended up changing most of the story around because of it. So doing the research after can change a lot in the plot, so it's better to know beforehand.
Doing the research can be a lot of fun. I remember before I wanted to get into film I was writing a story. It was a retrospective told through flashbacks. My main character had a rough child hood and wound up leaving his home at 18 to find a better path. I had him as a fishermen off the coast of Russia, a path cutter for Scientists doing research in the Amazon, he was part of a grunt team to help with heavy lifting of equipment in Antartica. I had no real background in those areas just the basic school knowledge. But to make it sound legit and reliatic I had top look up real species of plants in teh jungle, the size of a real fishing boat that would be relevant to Russia. Its all about relevance and keeping teh story as specific but understandable as possible. people love detail because it draws them in. I agree with the first response, if you only write what you know how will you ever know more. Part of writing is having the balls to get out of your comfort zone.
Just strike a balance between what you know and what you need.
The best way to get informed is to ask friends who work in those fields, they will provide you with exactly what you ned to know to convince the average viewer you are an expert.
I wanted to write a script about travelers from all around the world meeting in a plane stuck at the airport for technical problems. I am not in their mind, neither do I know what technical problems could stop a plane and all its passengers on the runway for hours.
I tried to find real people from all those countries around me, just asked them how they would react and behave in such a case, then went to the airport to ask for advice. It took me a week, and I had all my info!
Just ask, relations are the best way to learn anything
The best way to get informed is to ask friends who work in those fields, they will provide you with exactly what you ned to know to convince the average viewer you are an expert.
I wanted to write a script about travelers from all around the world meeting in a plane stuck at the airport for technical problems. I am not in their mind, neither do I know what technical problems could stop a plane and all its passengers on the runway for hours.
I tried to find real people from all those countries around me, just asked them how they would react and behave in such a case, then went to the airport to ask for advice. It took me a week, and I had all my info!
Just ask, relations are the best way to learn anything
It took months for my last script to get all the info. Sure I guess it makes a better script, but I would like not let writing get in the way for that long. I will do the research and see if I can find some law students, who are more into federal/national security law. Thanks guys for all the input.