The “Write What You Know” Rule

SOLVING THE GREAT DEBATE

I’ve been thinking a lot about the advice that’s been pounded into the heads of creative writing students for ages: write what you know.

I asked you on Instagram how much you think this advice applies to writing fiction specifically, and the results surprised me. The average answer was right in the middle, meaning some people think it’s super important, and others don’t think it matters at all.

When I’m thinking about an idea for a character or setting that’s wildly out of my range of knowledge or experience, I always falter. Can I even write about that? Will I do it justice, or will people be offended?

In some interviews, writers say we should throw this rule out completely. If everyone wrote only what they knew, nothing creative would ever happen. Every novel would be an autobiography.

Yet, with enough research or creative vision, you can know a lot about something you’ve never experienced. So, where do you draw the line? How much do you have to know before writing?

“WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW” RULE #1: ONLY WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW

Obviously, this advice makes sense. If you are a second-grade teacher and you write a story about second graders, you already have a closer connection to your characters than an accountant with no children. With this logic, we would say that a second-grade student would be able to write an even better story about being in second grade. Hmm.

Here’s another example: if I play the violin, I might easily include a violinist in my story without having to research the musical jargon that comes with years of experience with an instrument. My character’s dialogue relating to the violin will be much more natural. It will make the character feel real.

In The Book, one of my characters is really good at soccer. I haven’t played soccer in a long time, but I still at least have a basic understanding of it. I’m writing what I know.

So, “write what you know” seems to work.

Until every character in every book I ever write starts to feel the same. If I stick only to my own interests and experiences, I’ll run out of fresh material within a couple hundred pages. And those pages will be a fragmented autobiography.

Yikes.

“WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW” RULE #2: DON’T WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW

On the other hand, I could branch out. I could write about things I’ve never experienced or cared for.

In The Book, I have a character who is in foster care. I don’t have much personal knowledge of the foster care system. Still, I chose to include this detail, and I still want this character to be believable and authentic.

Can I do that?

If I apply the stark opposite of the “write what you know” rule, the answer is a firm yes.

But even this can be taken too far. If I write this character without doing any research, I’ll be writing with complete ignorance. And that could get fishy. My limited understanding of foster care would definitely make my character—my whole fictional world, even—less authentic.

Yikes.

“WRITE WHAT YOU KNOW” RULE #3: MEET IN THE MIDDLE

Can you write about things you haven’t personally experienced? Of course, you can. Not every character can be a cookie-cutter copy of your own life.

If you want to write about something you don’t know, you’ve got to research until you do know. That’s the first step. That could include reading a lot of articles, talking to or emailing experts, or figuring out a way to experience something for yourself.

You can find a way to write about anything—magic portals, natural disasters, superpowers—if you can find a single thread of connection. Emotional connection is what pulls these two extreme rules together for a happy little compromise. You can probably imagine how your character would react to a situation even if you’ve never experienced it. Emotional depth makes for believable characters. Boom.

Did we solve the great debate?

Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments below. How do you write what you know?