I write what I don’t know. It’s way more interesting. PATRICK ROTHFUSS Share this:TweetEmailPrintMoreRedditShare on TumblrLike this:Like Loading... Related OnehundredtwentynineOnehundredthirtyone
Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story about a traveling salesman who dealt in novelty items — stuff you could use for April Fool pranks and other amusements. He went into a lot of detail about the character’s life and circumstances, the retail outlets with which he interacted, the ways his career affected his personal life, and lots of other things. The picture Asimov painted of this guy’s life was so richly detailed that people assumed he’d done a lot of research — that he must have interviewed plenty of sales professionals in that field, and so forth.
But no: Asimov explained, in his story notes, that he’d just made it all up. Probably (he indicated) very little of the background was accurate or realistic. He didn’t have time or patience to do a ton of research, and anyway, that would have constrained his storytelling. He saw no reason to bother.
There’s certainly a good case for “writing what you know”. And for doing one’s homework. If you’re representing something as non-fiction, it’s essential. Although even there, I’ve often plunged into writing about stuff about which I knew nothing — the principle being I’d learn as I went along.
So yes, writing what we know can be highly over-rated!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Gary. That’s a very interesting anecdote. My wife and I were just having this discussion about Rothfuss’ quote being in direct contradiction to Hemingway’s. She also read your comment. We both agree with the content of the quote which is what you said as well. However, Beth thinks Rothfuss may have said it in a tongue in cheek manner just to instigate controversy and/or dialogue.
I then noted that of all the people who encounter today’s post and this quote the ones who said something are themselves writers (Beth is working on a novel, 40,000 words in).