Write What You Know?

It is by far one of the most common pieces of advice that beginning writers will receive: write what you know. It seems like natural, intuitive words of wisdom- that no writer, especially one without much experience, should bother attempting to construct a narrative concerning a subject with which they are not highly familiar. There is a real argument to be made here that the ultimate mission of every writer should be to convey some aspect of their personal world through story, and that diverging from this is to ultimately appropriate. Some very well-known writers seem to practically define this mentality: John Grisham, for example, practiced criminal law for years prior to writing his first legal thriller. The list of authors who exclusively set stories in their hometowns is too long to even begin naming. Writing what you know is an easy way to build a narrative that feels comfortable, over which you can maintain total control, and share a part of yourself with an audience. That is the ultimate advantage, which is not to be discounted. However, it is wildly bad advice to stipulate that writing beyond the familiar is somehow bad practice, when in reality, it can be one of the best forms of advanced authorly development. Yes, a budding storyteller is probably best off sharing that which feels well-known and easy to convey to them. However, any truly committed individual hoping to find genuine challenge and progress in their writing efforts would be remiss not to explore themes, characters, and settings not immediately familiar. Research and exploration can often be one of the best ways towards development, as has been the case in my experience, and as could easily be the case for anybody seeking to truly test themself in the field of pen and paper.