![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
'Write what you know': A Thought
Jan. 25th, 2025 12:49 pmBefore it's suggested, no, it wasn't a ceratin author or anything like that.
It was a post on my BlueSky feed where a link was reposted for a video of Mel Gibson, noted controversial (and rightly so) Australian actor, was effectively endorsing the new US President. He said something along the lines of, 'daddy's home and he's taking off his belt.' A comment on this added: 'Write what you know.'
Not sure why but this got my neurons going.
Mainly it was becaue I wondered 'Why say that? It was a video. Mel Gibson said that. If anything, didn't he say what he knew?' Because that's how my brain works and I overthink things. Then my next thought was 'Is this really what he knew? Or is he just saying it, which is definitely more than likely and does not assume anything other than pure right wing rhetoric.' Because, as I later added to myself, I know nothing about Mel Gibson other than films, his racist outburts and now this. What right have I to assume anything more by what he's saying?
But it clicked with me. Just that phrase. The context of it.
The first time I think anyone hears it is in light of writing advice. I heard it at school and it was in English, more to do with creative writing. If anyone was stuck, the teacher would advise 'Write what you know, that way you can express yourself and add something to the story.' To which most would certainly scoff and at least internally say that their lives were so boring, why would anyone read that. Spoiler: people do. It's why diaries are big sellers. Just think of Samuel Pepys and how that's probably dull as ditchwater to anyone wanting more than what he ate on one day but exciting to those who love seeing that people have just, well, lived. And historians.
I see this in writing advice generally and after a while I wondered why people would write what they know... then end up writing say a thriller, or a a murder mystery. Did Agatha Christie ever really experience the terror and near-euphoria of killing somone she despised/loved/etc? Did she ever investigate a murder and see how suddenly dramatically someone broke down or stood up in cold anger and boldly declared 'Yes.. I did it! And I'm glad i did!' (For the record, I binged every Agatha Christie book as a kid.) It was always advised to me but I felt it was dull and not very interesting. But I was a kid and I had a slight tendency to take everything literally. It was why I asked myself why there was so much fantasy, horror, thriller, sci fi etc when no one had experienced flying atop a dragon, being in the future or being chased by a crazed serial killer- oh wait that last one may actually be plausible for some.
Then there's mythology. These are stories of gods, goddesses, spirits, entities and other things. Has anyone actually stolen fire from the gods? No. But it makes a good story. No one's created air and sky and earth from nothing but it was there and humans were wondering, with all neurons on fire, where this wondrous bounty came from, and someone with a good knack for story-telling just happened to say something like 'Oh it was the trickster god (insert name here) and he tricked (insert other name here) to do it!' and blam, you have a story and then the same pressure that comes with an avid audience asking 'well, what happens next?!' (there's sneers too but honestly writers/authors/creators from the age of civilisation have had this.)
The fact is that writing advice like this is more just guidance rather than a hard and fast rule. There's 'rules' many will say are ones to be adhered to, the one about not writing a Mary Sue comes to mind, but honestly... Can we really say that it works? To basically precsribe rules and be utterly beholden to them, i mean.
Maybe it's because I'm neurospicy but rules are handy to me for guidelines. It tells me boundaries I should not cross and other times, depending on the rule... it tells where I can actually bend them and pass on through without getting a slap on the wrist. I 'broke' minor' rules all the time. Maybe once or twice I got a telling off but I did ultimately help someone by doing it. Writing rules for me are guidelines. My teachers taught me quite poorly and were not very expansive when it came to 'write waht you know'. They took it literally and taught it literally. But what if 'write what you know' became 'write things, feelings, experiences taht ou know... but change the setting. What happens then?' and that's how I always perceived it after.
For context here, I normally don't try to use my own writing as example but I will do here. I have a cast of characters I love to write and they are all different. I have a few tricksters. I have reprehensible villains on varying scales of redemption. I have morally grey characters. I have those who are stuck in their own rut and try to do good but end up causing harm. Have I experienced the wild wastelands of Fallout? No! Thank goodness too. Me in that setting is a dried up husk of skeleton because a wild dog got me. Can I imagine someone able to live there and survive? Yes!
What I do write though is their thoughts. I can write them being angry at something inconvenient. I can write them happy they got to eat. I can tap into my darkest thoughts, ones I would never act on because my morality and sense of guilt forbid it, and channel that dark energy into a character who's absolutely designed to be hated. Over time, I have absorbed ideas from others that are definitely not mine and if I were to say write, someone saying something racist, it's because I know where I grew up, I heard these things and somehow the thoughts nested in my head. Then it just pops out in a loose thought and I think, 'Hey wait... I don't think that!' But I could write someone else saying the bad thought, if that makes sense.
Okay, this is a nice lead in to the next context I have seen this phrase and yes, this may be from recent news, but I think it can be applied broadly to anyone seen as controversial and carrying allegations. I am referring to those caught in various allegations, such as sexual, racist, transphobic etc. For me this where it can get a bit murky.
Previously I have said a good person doesn't mean good work, and a bad person doesn't mean bad work. To clarify, a good person can make a terribly thought out piece of work. 'But it came from a good place, they were trying to help' you could say. That may be true but what they did caused hurt and taht should be acknowledged. A bad person can make the most beautiful art or story or whatever and behind closed doors not take anything in whatsoever from what they wrote. It's still a beautiful work, but the person behind it is not a good person morally.
The problem I have here is that I think whether a person is good or bad morally speaking, it kind of makes things complicated when you realise we are fundamentally very flawed. I have been watching a lot of Mormon content recently, notably from ex-Mormons who are using Youtube as a way to talk about their experiences and in some cases try to get through years of conditioning. It's at once very touching and emotional to see them talk about something I've never experienced then suddenly the speaker needs a moment to compose themselves because internally they have held in so much anger and it just slips out. Nonetheless it gives a visual to things I always believed. The belief I always held was that anyone proclaiminmg to be a good person and shouting it from a rooftop of faith is not likely to be. In the case of Mormons and Mormonism, they proclaim to eschew things morally objectionable but do little to help society at large, and only as a whole, not on a personal level.
It also highlighted that many fantasy authors are Mormon. You'd think from a moral standpoint that this morally pure faith would have authors writing nothing but good but, heh, not the case.
Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and bloody hell, now that I know a lot more, holy fuck do I see it. Yes, it sparked a huge craze and dedicated fanbase and it was at times a little too much and too overt but even so it was never really in my orbit. But pair that with the fact she put a native tribe in Twilight, complete with giving them a very bad presentation and combining that with the deeply-held Mormon belief the native tribes are cursed and became dark-skinned through turning away from God. Now you see the problem! She's unlikely to retract this by the way. Is Twilight even good? Taking away the knowledge she is Mormon, I still don't think the books are good. Not my s[eed and too many objectionable things in it for me.
Then there's Shad L Brooks. You'll know him as Shadiversity, a noted sword-fighting youtuber and now a grifter for the anti-woke agenda. Also brother of Jazza on youtube who's an artist. Also an author. He's a Mormon from Australia (ah there we go! Linking back to my intro) and he's written books! The one i know because dear Gods I find it objectionable, is Shadow of the Conqueror. Essentially its about redemption of a former despot but in actuality its a power fantasy about a man who is reborn, tries to do good, fails and just shrugs, does his shit anyway. This would be one case of definitely writing what he knows as there's references to the Mormon afterlife, beliefs around women considered spoiled if touched even once sexually, and even his politics.
Like Stephanie Meyer, it's not in my orbit and I don't consider it a good work. I don't like the man behind it either as he's a massive AI afficionado. But do I think his beliefs in this case make him a bad man and therefore his work is a bad work? Maybe partially? This one needs a whole new entry but my basic summary is: I don't necessarily think religious people are terrible, but if they have beliefs that harm, then it can and does colour their work. It depends on the author.
Final example from this crop, I'll use Brandon Sanderson who is also Mormon. But here it's a little different. He's spoken out publically that he is a Mormon and staying in the faith. He pays his tithes, has the garments etc. But his work is so much different. In many interviews he has come out in support of margialised groups and according to many, his works actually show a great variance of characters from all backgrounds and all are afforded some level of decency.
This is in stark contrast to Shadiversity who hates even the idea of a character who isn't straight. There's even, shock horror, nuance. Is it perfect? No. No work ever is, morally or practically. But does he at least make an effort and show he's looking outside of his sphere? Absolutely. This may or may not exonerate him to the eyes of some but I think this is a case of a person trying to be good, be a difference in the world, and coming out with a piece that is not bad, not wholly good (purely moral sense I thinking here) but still striving. And honestly that is all I ask for.
i could use JKR as an example but honestly I have been re-evaluating my own thoughts on the whole good person/good works, bad person/bad works side of things. In any case this is long enough and it felt good to get my thoughts out.
My summary is this then: I think the idea of 'write what you know' has merit. I think we do end up writing what we know at least a little subconsiously. But at least in my experience some of that hasn't been something I have believed, but absorbed from around me. It's easy to forget that we are part of a larger group, being a social animal. And it can be easy to forget also that sometimes you write for a purpose. It could be propaganda, it could be for fun, or there could be a commentary there taht you want to get people talking about. if we took 'write what you know' literally, I think it'd cause more harm than good and it's always good to step out of what you know.
It was a post on my BlueSky feed where a link was reposted for a video of Mel Gibson, noted controversial (and rightly so) Australian actor, was effectively endorsing the new US President. He said something along the lines of, 'daddy's home and he's taking off his belt.' A comment on this added: 'Write what you know.'
Not sure why but this got my neurons going.
Mainly it was becaue I wondered 'Why say that? It was a video. Mel Gibson said that. If anything, didn't he say what he knew?' Because that's how my brain works and I overthink things. Then my next thought was 'Is this really what he knew? Or is he just saying it, which is definitely more than likely and does not assume anything other than pure right wing rhetoric.' Because, as I later added to myself, I know nothing about Mel Gibson other than films, his racist outburts and now this. What right have I to assume anything more by what he's saying?
But it clicked with me. Just that phrase. The context of it.
The first time I think anyone hears it is in light of writing advice. I heard it at school and it was in English, more to do with creative writing. If anyone was stuck, the teacher would advise 'Write what you know, that way you can express yourself and add something to the story.' To which most would certainly scoff and at least internally say that their lives were so boring, why would anyone read that. Spoiler: people do. It's why diaries are big sellers. Just think of Samuel Pepys and how that's probably dull as ditchwater to anyone wanting more than what he ate on one day but exciting to those who love seeing that people have just, well, lived. And historians.
I see this in writing advice generally and after a while I wondered why people would write what they know... then end up writing say a thriller, or a a murder mystery. Did Agatha Christie ever really experience the terror and near-euphoria of killing somone she despised/loved/etc? Did she ever investigate a murder and see how suddenly dramatically someone broke down or stood up in cold anger and boldly declared 'Yes.. I did it! And I'm glad i did!' (For the record, I binged every Agatha Christie book as a kid.) It was always advised to me but I felt it was dull and not very interesting. But I was a kid and I had a slight tendency to take everything literally. It was why I asked myself why there was so much fantasy, horror, thriller, sci fi etc when no one had experienced flying atop a dragon, being in the future or being chased by a crazed serial killer- oh wait that last one may actually be plausible for some.
Then there's mythology. These are stories of gods, goddesses, spirits, entities and other things. Has anyone actually stolen fire from the gods? No. But it makes a good story. No one's created air and sky and earth from nothing but it was there and humans were wondering, with all neurons on fire, where this wondrous bounty came from, and someone with a good knack for story-telling just happened to say something like 'Oh it was the trickster god (insert name here) and he tricked (insert other name here) to do it!' and blam, you have a story and then the same pressure that comes with an avid audience asking 'well, what happens next?!' (there's sneers too but honestly writers/authors/creators from the age of civilisation have had this.)
The fact is that writing advice like this is more just guidance rather than a hard and fast rule. There's 'rules' many will say are ones to be adhered to, the one about not writing a Mary Sue comes to mind, but honestly... Can we really say that it works? To basically precsribe rules and be utterly beholden to them, i mean.
Maybe it's because I'm neurospicy but rules are handy to me for guidelines. It tells me boundaries I should not cross and other times, depending on the rule... it tells where I can actually bend them and pass on through without getting a slap on the wrist. I 'broke' minor' rules all the time. Maybe once or twice I got a telling off but I did ultimately help someone by doing it. Writing rules for me are guidelines. My teachers taught me quite poorly and were not very expansive when it came to 'write waht you know'. They took it literally and taught it literally. But what if 'write what you know' became 'write things, feelings, experiences taht ou know... but change the setting. What happens then?' and that's how I always perceived it after.
For context here, I normally don't try to use my own writing as example but I will do here. I have a cast of characters I love to write and they are all different. I have a few tricksters. I have reprehensible villains on varying scales of redemption. I have morally grey characters. I have those who are stuck in their own rut and try to do good but end up causing harm. Have I experienced the wild wastelands of Fallout? No! Thank goodness too. Me in that setting is a dried up husk of skeleton because a wild dog got me. Can I imagine someone able to live there and survive? Yes!
What I do write though is their thoughts. I can write them being angry at something inconvenient. I can write them happy they got to eat. I can tap into my darkest thoughts, ones I would never act on because my morality and sense of guilt forbid it, and channel that dark energy into a character who's absolutely designed to be hated. Over time, I have absorbed ideas from others that are definitely not mine and if I were to say write, someone saying something racist, it's because I know where I grew up, I heard these things and somehow the thoughts nested in my head. Then it just pops out in a loose thought and I think, 'Hey wait... I don't think that!' But I could write someone else saying the bad thought, if that makes sense.
Okay, this is a nice lead in to the next context I have seen this phrase and yes, this may be from recent news, but I think it can be applied broadly to anyone seen as controversial and carrying allegations. I am referring to those caught in various allegations, such as sexual, racist, transphobic etc. For me this where it can get a bit murky.
Previously I have said a good person doesn't mean good work, and a bad person doesn't mean bad work. To clarify, a good person can make a terribly thought out piece of work. 'But it came from a good place, they were trying to help' you could say. That may be true but what they did caused hurt and taht should be acknowledged. A bad person can make the most beautiful art or story or whatever and behind closed doors not take anything in whatsoever from what they wrote. It's still a beautiful work, but the person behind it is not a good person morally.
The problem I have here is that I think whether a person is good or bad morally speaking, it kind of makes things complicated when you realise we are fundamentally very flawed. I have been watching a lot of Mormon content recently, notably from ex-Mormons who are using Youtube as a way to talk about their experiences and in some cases try to get through years of conditioning. It's at once very touching and emotional to see them talk about something I've never experienced then suddenly the speaker needs a moment to compose themselves because internally they have held in so much anger and it just slips out. Nonetheless it gives a visual to things I always believed. The belief I always held was that anyone proclaiminmg to be a good person and shouting it from a rooftop of faith is not likely to be. In the case of Mormons and Mormonism, they proclaim to eschew things morally objectionable but do little to help society at large, and only as a whole, not on a personal level.
It also highlighted that many fantasy authors are Mormon. You'd think from a moral standpoint that this morally pure faith would have authors writing nothing but good but, heh, not the case.
Stephanie Meyer is Mormon and bloody hell, now that I know a lot more, holy fuck do I see it. Yes, it sparked a huge craze and dedicated fanbase and it was at times a little too much and too overt but even so it was never really in my orbit. But pair that with the fact she put a native tribe in Twilight, complete with giving them a very bad presentation and combining that with the deeply-held Mormon belief the native tribes are cursed and became dark-skinned through turning away from God. Now you see the problem! She's unlikely to retract this by the way. Is Twilight even good? Taking away the knowledge she is Mormon, I still don't think the books are good. Not my s[eed and too many objectionable things in it for me.
Then there's Shad L Brooks. You'll know him as Shadiversity, a noted sword-fighting youtuber and now a grifter for the anti-woke agenda. Also brother of Jazza on youtube who's an artist. Also an author. He's a Mormon from Australia (ah there we go! Linking back to my intro) and he's written books! The one i know because dear Gods I find it objectionable, is Shadow of the Conqueror. Essentially its about redemption of a former despot but in actuality its a power fantasy about a man who is reborn, tries to do good, fails and just shrugs, does his shit anyway. This would be one case of definitely writing what he knows as there's references to the Mormon afterlife, beliefs around women considered spoiled if touched even once sexually, and even his politics.
Like Stephanie Meyer, it's not in my orbit and I don't consider it a good work. I don't like the man behind it either as he's a massive AI afficionado. But do I think his beliefs in this case make him a bad man and therefore his work is a bad work? Maybe partially? This one needs a whole new entry but my basic summary is: I don't necessarily think religious people are terrible, but if they have beliefs that harm, then it can and does colour their work. It depends on the author.
Final example from this crop, I'll use Brandon Sanderson who is also Mormon. But here it's a little different. He's spoken out publically that he is a Mormon and staying in the faith. He pays his tithes, has the garments etc. But his work is so much different. In many interviews he has come out in support of margialised groups and according to many, his works actually show a great variance of characters from all backgrounds and all are afforded some level of decency.
This is in stark contrast to Shadiversity who hates even the idea of a character who isn't straight. There's even, shock horror, nuance. Is it perfect? No. No work ever is, morally or practically. But does he at least make an effort and show he's looking outside of his sphere? Absolutely. This may or may not exonerate him to the eyes of some but I think this is a case of a person trying to be good, be a difference in the world, and coming out with a piece that is not bad, not wholly good (purely moral sense I thinking here) but still striving. And honestly that is all I ask for.
i could use JKR as an example but honestly I have been re-evaluating my own thoughts on the whole good person/good works, bad person/bad works side of things. In any case this is long enough and it felt good to get my thoughts out.
My summary is this then: I think the idea of 'write what you know' has merit. I think we do end up writing what we know at least a little subconsiously. But at least in my experience some of that hasn't been something I have believed, but absorbed from around me. It's easy to forget that we are part of a larger group, being a social animal. And it can be easy to forget also that sometimes you write for a purpose. It could be propaganda, it could be for fun, or there could be a commentary there taht you want to get people talking about. if we took 'write what you know' literally, I think it'd cause more harm than good and it's always good to step out of what you know.
Tags:
