From: jim@thinkage.on.ca (James Alan Gardner)
Subject: Re: Uncreative Writing.
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 15:05:47 GMT

[...]

The perennial question of the dictum "write what you know" is
deciding what you "know".  People who believe that they only
"know" about things they've experienced directly are stuck with
writing about clones of themselves.  A slightly wider definition
of "knowing" would let you write about what you've observed or
overheard from other people.  Expanding a lot more, you can say
that you "know" about things that you've researched to an
appropriate extent.  Beyond that, you can claim to "know" any
subject that's come your way, including what you've picked up
while reading fiction.

You can make an argument for all these classes of "knowing" as
valid bases for writing.  In the right hands, they all can work.
The problem is that they can all fail too, if you don't really
know what you think you know.

We've all read books where the authors didn't really know what they
were talking about: historical novels where the authors got the
history wrong; genre novels where the authors knew doodly-squat
about the genre; contemporary novels where the authors clearly
had no idea how people actually think and behave.  Such writing
doesn't work.  If readers keep reading at all, it's usually to
find out just how bad the book is going to get.

On the other hand, we've all read books where the authors dazzle
us with their knowledge of their material, whether the material
is police procedures, nuclear physics, or the way that ordinary
people act when they're falling out of love.  The words have the
ring of authority and authenticity.  Sometimes, the authors are
pulling the wool over our eyes because they're actually twisting
the facts -- compare the westerns written fifty years ago to our
current understanding of what the Old West was really like -- but
the authors still provide solid verisimilitude.

So the question becomes, what do you need to know in order to
write the book you want to write?  In the case of medieval
fantasy (if you really have a medieval fantasy story that is
burning within your soul and demands to be written, as opposed
to having a vague fondness for the idea of your name on a book
cover above an illustration by Tom Canty), what do you need to
know in order to help you write a worthwhile medieval fantasy?
You need to know what else has been written in the genre.  You
need to know what has become cliche in the genre.  You need to
know what medieval life was really like.  You may need to know
about the crafts of coopers, weavers, armourers, wagoneers,
and masons, as well as knights and rogues.  You should know
how people behave when they're angry, when they're in love,
when they're confused, when they're scared, when they're
hungry, and when they desperately want something they're never
going to have.  In addition, of course, you should know how
to write and how to tell a story, which is tricky enough in
itself.

Some of this knowledge has to come from research and reading;
but if all you "know" is what you've read in other books,
you're just going to come up with a rehash of those stories.
You have to bring more to your writing desk.  Bringing in
the joys and anguish of your personal life can make your story
more human, and perhaps more enduring.  Bringing in solid
research into the times and culture can give your work more
depth and authenticity than books that are just based on
someone's D&D campaign.  Bringing in your personal truths can
create a story that is unique and original.

You have to accept that some people just aren't going to be
in the audience for your work.  Some people open a book, see
that it doesn't take place in contemporary North America, and
close the book again.  Their loss.  You can't do anything about
readers who shut you off before they've read a word.  Your job
is to engage the readers who *are* ready to give you a chance.
What do you have to know to be able to do that?

		Jim Gardner, Thinkage Ltd.