Advice to writers usually includes "write what you know." But how does one write fiction based on personal experiences without damaging one’s friends and relations? Is it enough to change names and other identifying details? I’m not concerned about getting sued for libel so much as about offending or embarrassing other people or passing on information about them that shouldn’t really be public.
Do not allow those upon whom you've based your characters to read your book. After it's published, of course, you won't be able to avoid this, but by then you'll be off on your forty-city book tour, and will have forgotten all about the little people whose lives you trampled on in your quest to reach the top.
Another suggestion: write only about the good stuff your friends have done. Make up villainous characters for the evil stuff, or base those characters on Evil Editor. I won't sue you or get offended. As long as my inspiration is acknowledged.
Also, you could ask your friends how they would feel about your including the embarrassing incident involving the vacuum cleaner and the emergency room in your novel. Possibly they would be delighted. Possibly they're over it and you're worrying needlessly.
51 comments:
There are SO many great novels that have been written, that wouldn't have been written if their authors worried like this. Or at least if they worried, and acted upon those worries (by inaction, or by tip-toeing around their subject matter) rather than forging ahead.
So write the novel you want to write.
Besides, you can always put in the disclaimer that all characters in the novel are fictional and any similarities to real people are purely coincidental. Or whatever it says at the beginning of every Law & Order.
Not that I know.
Half my friends quit talking to me after they read my book...that'll teach me LOL.
Now my YA I'm working on..all the kids in it love it, of course they're in their 30's now LOL. Ahhhh memories :)
"Make up villainous characters for the evil stuff, or base those characters on Evil Editor. I won't sue you or get offended. As long as my inspiration is acknowledged."
I have to acknowledge you were the inspiration for one of my characters?
I believe the advice is, "write what you know", not "who you know".
For me, that means if I am going to write about characters sailing a clipper ship across the ocean, I need to read up on clipper ships.
If you want to write about sibling rivalry, there's nothing wrong with basing it on you and your sister. But the story can be modified so the details no longer reflect directly to your sister. The idea is to write about the rivalry and not your sister.
My belabored point is that writing about personal experiences does not mean including all/any of the details. What you are writing about are the feelings, motivations and human responses. Those apply to everyone, whether they have shared your experience or not. And they apply to other experiences. That's the key.
Good luck.
I prefer to rephrase this advice into what I think was originally intended: KNOW WHAT YOU'RE WRITING ABOUT. In other words, don't wing it.
BBJD and Buffy are dead on. And of course, EE's comments are delightful.
For me, that means if I am going to write about characters sailing a clipper ship across the ocean, I need to read up on clipper ships.
Read? Ha, when I found myself writing about characters on a sailing ship, I went sailing & checked out as many ships as I could (see: http://monissaw.livejournal.com/tag/sail now I have a nice little sailing ship visual reference library).
My take is that the better you "know" something the better you can write about it (except when you're at that point where you realise how little you actually know and therefore you're worried about trying to write out it) and the more you can experience things, the better you'll know them. So if you ever get a chance to go horse riding, try archery, visit a ruined building or even just checking out the travelling exhibitions at the local museum -- go for it, evrey time. It might not help your writing directly, but it does make life more interesting, and THAT has to help.
I don't think "write about what you know" means you can only describe situations you've personally witnessed. I think you're taking it too literally. It's meant in a more broad, generalized way.
If you don't know how many legs a horse has, don't write about training a triple crown winner. If you've spent twenty years in the coal mines, try spinning out a story about miners, evil corporate mining executives, shaft collapses, etc.
It doesn't have to be based only on things you saw personally and people you know intimately.
So, yeah, I've heard: write what you know.
I've also heard: basing your novel on yourself is the mark of the amateur.
And we've all read that people read too much.
The point is, isn't creative writing supposed to be . . . ya know . . . creative? I mean, we write because we're compelled to write, we enjoy writing, these crazy, fantastical, ridiculous, heartbreaking or hilarious things pop into our heads and we feel the need to put them down on paper (or, more likely, a computer screen). So I guess my question is: is coming up with something to write about such an issue?
I mean, yeah. Roman a clef is big right now.
As for me, if I want to write fiction, I (at least attempt to) write actual fiction.
I write lots of dialog and I'm constantly listening in on conversations around me. Many times I use what I've heard to make characters talk realistically. I've never tell people I listen and use their words or cadence because then they get goofy and talk funny.
What I want to hear is not their perfect speech but the imperfect conversations where people use code and say "uh" and "yanno" and stop to let the other person finish their thought.
So why can't you use personal experience if you don't write the exact same characters and the exact same conversations (or situations).
"when I found myself writing about characters on a sailing ship, I went sailing"
I agree. Practical experience is best. However, in this day and age practical experience often equates with money. Without it, one goes to the library and reads.
What if you're writing a murder-mystery based on your own evil alter ego?
How do you even edit the damn thing?
Ursula Le Guin neatly settled the "write what you know" dilhemma for me once and for all when she said:
"As for ‘write what you know,’ I was regularly told this as a beginner. I think it’s a very good rule and have always obeyed it. I write about imaginary countries, alien societies on other planets, dragons, wizards, the Napa Valley in 22002. I know these things. I know them better than anybody else possibly could, so it’s my duty to testify about them. I got my knowledge of them, as I got whatever knowledge I have of the hearts and minds of human beings, through imagination working on observation. Like any other novelist. All this rule needs is a good definition of ‘know.’”
You go, girl. :D
I lean toward Steven King's thoughts on this- write whatever the hell you want ( who could possible "know" what it's like to live on another planet) but your characters have to be honest.
What if you're writing a murder-mystery based on your own evil alter ego?
How do you even edit the damn thing?
You write the first draft, set it aside for a month or so until you lose familiarity with it. When you return to it, you're no longer writing yourself into the story, you have a character who you can develop further. The character is now on the page and not in your mind. He or she is only described by the words. You know the character (either from living with him or her, or by writing and outlining the character. But the reader doesn't know the character. The author gets to manipulate those words for the reader's delight to heighten the emotional points and punch up the story.
If "write what you know" is a mantra truly taken to heart, the proliferation of vampire novels makes me worry for the integrity of my carotid artery.
I've missed the boat on "write what you know" damnit! I lost the MS I wrote at age 19 when I knew everything!!
Meri
BBJD wrote-- My belabored point is that writing about personal experiences does not mean including all/any of the details. What you are writing about are the feelings, motivations and human responses. Those apply to everyone, whether they have shared your experience or not.
True enough. But the writing has to consist of details. And the people I know offer a fascinating variety of details--turns of speech, gestures, backfiring manipulative techniques, interesting contradictions etc. So if I'm going to write a story that includes sibling rivalry I'l probably lift some of these details from my sibling or my friends, even if the larger story in which the rivalry takes place doesn't resemble their lives very closely.
I guess this suggests two possible awkwardnesses. One is writing a character who's basically a real person transposed into the fictional situation and irritating pr embarrassing them by showing them as they really look to me. The other is borrowing a mannerism from an actual person and attaching it to a character who has other nasty traits not present in the borrowee...
Thanks for the varied advice, everyone! EE, how did you know about the vacuum cleaner?
I never write real people. To be totally honest, I know very few people interesting enough to carry a novel. And all of them can be made even more interesting by changing their looks, jobs, families, habits, or amping up their personalities to double or triple the norm.
Then again, I write genre. Literary or contemporary romance writers see things differently.
When you read in a book about something that you have experienced you don't assume the author based it on you.
With 6 billion people on Earth, you can assume that anything embarrassing that happens to someone has happened to at least 60,000 other people.
Use a pen name for this book if you're worried. If your next book doesn't embarrass or offend anyone, you can switch to your real name if you want to.
I throw in mannerisms, personalities, etc, etc, taken directly from people within my life. I think it brings a certain amount of realness to the characters.
Also I'm of the thought that if one person's doing it, there are countless others doing that exact same thing.
Just don't be stupid like in this situation:
My sister can be a bitch; her name is Marcy. So in my story/book/whatever, I create a character who is just like her named Darcy.
However, in this day and age practical experience often equates with money. Without it, one goes to the library and reads.
Yeah, sucks. I had to give up my tall shipping because of travel costs :(
The actual sail training was only $25 a year -- it's an organisation that relies on volunteers. I don't know what volunteer opportunities are like in the rest of the world, but I spend a day a week at our city's museum, and museums are far more interesting in the back rooms than the public spaces; I did some time at a National Trust propery too, but transport was a problem there too and the Endeavour (if you happpened to read my LJ page) also relies on volunteers when they're visiting ports (and they were shorthanded -- you get the run of floating museum in return for a few hours a day telling people things and they were shorthanded?)
Of course if time AND money are a problem, it's a bit harder, or if you live in the dullest city, no wait, that's here. But I'm just saying, it's not always about money (sometimes it's about living in the right place, not that I'm bitching or anything :)
I don't think it's possible to write without incorporating your own experiences. That includes your experiences with people you know. Where else can you draw your characters personalities from? The rotten traits are bound to show up as well. Writers through the centuries have dealt with it. It's kind of a sacrifice of sorts and you have to know where to draw the line. To write compelling characters, you have to imbue them with realistic mannerisms and personalities and where else do you get that then your life. Getting the courage to display that is one of the fears I've had to overcome. Unfortunately, it's mostly about people I don't like. The work that portrays my friends in a bad light, I'm afraid to let loose.
If anyone wants to see character development on display, the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica has an entire hour of drama based on character development.
And believe me, this is an unbelievably dark and incredibly dramatic hour. Just no plot. It's all reactions to finding that the Earth they dreamed of is a blasted nuclear waste. It won't matter if you've never watched before. You will understand the story.
It's titled "Sometimes a Great Notion."
*adds Dave to the number of people on the blasted Earth*
Have you never heard of spoiler warnings, you cad?
To write compelling characters, you have to imbue them with realistic mannerisms and personalities and where else do you get that then your life.
So when Mary wrote "Frankenstein" was she thinking of Byron or Percy, or a composite?
There's no spoiler in my comment. BSG ended last year with the finding of Earth. The writers, producers and directors of the show have said from episode one that the Colonials find Earth and it is not Earth as we know it. This was printed in every newspaper's TV review section when season 4 ended last year. SciFi ran the first ten episodes of Season four three times this month. Episode 1.10 was when they revealed Earth, first shown last summer. I know season 4.1 to 4.10 already screened in Britain and Australia. I've given away nothing of Episode 4.11 - "Sometimes a Great Notion" except that it deals with character development. If you want to see how good writers deal with character development, this is the show to see.
If you can create characters like these, then no one will ever think you imitated them or satirized them for your book. That's how you use real life in your book. How do real people react to the situation they are involved in...
And if you think the word "blasted" spoils anything, then you've never watched this version of BSG. Watch 4.11 and you'll see what I mean.
We are discussing character development in this comment trail... And character development is something to think about when you are writing the end of a story. What happens at the end? I do not mean the climax of the story, but how does the hero or heroine react to that climax. Does it change the hero/heroine (like Frodo changed in Tolkein?). How is your character different from the first time we meet him until the last time we see him?
If you are writing a courtroom drama, Does it end with a verdict? OR is there something more to be said? Does "Shadow of a Doubt" end with the verdict? Does "A Few Good Men" end with the verdict? Not by a long shot, there's more to tell in the story afterward.
It might be a final paragraph or a sentence, but how the story or chapter ends is important.
There's no spoiler here. I made sure there were no spoilers. Even in my defense there are no spoilers.
I tried to say this earlier but it didn't take form in my head until now.
I know of a real life tragedy where the father died a sudden death leaving the mother with only three months to live with cancer and the children had to be adopted by an uncle. That's tragic.
If I were to use that situation in a story, even the family would not recognize themselves. I would never write them so specifically into a story that they could recognize themselves without owning up to the source.
Take another situation, two friends are traveling back home from a trip and one and one dies while the other survives. How does that death affect the living friend? You see, I know those two people. So if I wrote this, I would use the emotional reaction to the death. I would write the circumstances whatever they were to something else and possibly even the sex of the characters.
Third example - what if a family were told that a son or daughter was dead and gathered to console each other and the son or daughter walks into the room still alive (by some trick of fate)? What happens in that very emotional and highly dramatic setting? I can use that idea but not the circumstances. I can't act as a camera.
It's the inventiveness of the author that makes the characters real.
One scene of great drama does not make a great story. and just the same, one character of great fun or tragedy does not make a story. The story exists in the whole and in the sum of its parts.
I think there can be a downside to basing things in reality, especially when writing fantasy. For example, I didn't feel like the faeries in Wicked Lovely were like faeries, and I didn't feel like the vampires in Twilight were like vampires. In the former, the faeries were basically long-lived humans who sometimes had vines on their arms, and in the latter, the vampires were long-lived humans who, just like humans, gained their nourishment from animals. And felt sorry for themselves.
The point is, if I'm reading about fantastical characters, I don't want them to resemble realistic humans, because they aren't supposed to be humans. Obviously, this is specific to one genre, but I feel like one of the great things about writing is Making Things Up.
And one of the most exciting things for me, as a reader, is reading about a place the author can't possibly have been to (physically).
Thoughts? Feelings? Machinations?
Last year I read Jennifer Crusie's AGNES AND THE HIT MAN and they have a wonderful wedding planning scene in it. In essence, the main character takes on a would be wedding planner by suggesting that they use "pink flamingos" as the wedding theme.
Well now I've been involved in a few wedding plans and they can get (to be nice about it) extravagantly weird. The wrong colors, odd familial customs, and even a fight between the groom and his brother over his calling their mother a whore (to tell the truth, I was not there but I have no reason to doubt the story.) and last but not least, the reverend's glass eye rolling down the aisle. (I was an altar boy and NO, we didn't laugh.)
None of them would top Crusie's Pink Flamingo wedding with table decorations, cocktails, pink bridesmaids and pink flowers stands on flamingos.
Be inventive. If you've seen outrageous or embarrassing, think of even more outrageous or embarrassing.
Even the "monster" himself had humanistic qualities that could easily be attributed to an actual person. Which of us hasn't encountered a child who's curiousity has engendered an intervention lest they harm themselves or another? What about the physical description or the creature or the description of his walk? That's to say nothing of the rest of the characters in that book.
The mention of Frankenstein in this particular dialogue is only a shade less ridiculous than invoking the white whale from Moby Dick. Did Melville know a particularly malicious white whale? More than likely not. But he might have known a stubborn old man set too deeply in his ways to avoid sure disaster.
The mention of Frankenstein in this particular dialogue is only a shade less ridiculous than invoking the white whale from Moby Dick. Did Melville know a particularly malicious white whale? More than likely not.
Melville returned to America and signed on as a seaman on the newly built whaling ship ACUSHNET for a trip in the Pacific Ocean. From this trip came the basic experiences recorded in several of his books, and above all, the whaling knowledge he put into MOBY-DICK.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americannovel/timeline/melville.html
Besides, Evil likes us to be ridiculous.
Actually, the whale Moby Dick was based on a vicious white whale known as Mocha Dick. No joke.
Speaking of Frankenstein -- After the third movie when they had the monster speak, Boris Karloff said he would never perform the monster again because speaking ruined the integrity of the monster. Karloff invented the monster, not the visual but the persona, the movements, the expressions. His view was that the imitation of life, the quasi-modo, shouldn't speak. That made the monster too human.
Interesting point to consider when you write hon-human characters.
Thank you so much, Mr. or Ms. Anonymous for proving without a doubt that our experiences and the people we encounter in our travels and adventures have an indelible effect on our prose.
Yes, it is a spoiler if you've only watched the first two seaons (Yeah, I haven't watched a show that was broadcast late at night, on a commercial station that I don't even get directly; weird, I know) because you were waiting to be able to get the DVDs and had meanwhile carefully avoided any sites that discussed the later series.
I didn't so say so earlier because I'm not as polite as sqirrels and EE probably wouldn't have let my comment at the time through.
So for future reference, please don't assume anyone who might watch a show/movie already has :(
Speaking of Frankenstein -- After the third movie when they had the monster speak, Boris Karloff said he would never perform the monster again because speaking ruined the integrity of the monster. Karloff invented the monster, not the visual but the persona, the movements, the expressions. His view was that the imitation of life, the quasi-modo, shouldn't speak. That made the monster too human.
Interesting point to consider when you write hon-human characters.
That is an interesting take, I suppose, but I'm guessing Boris Karloff never read the novel. It's been a while since I have, but as I recall, the monster did speak in the novel.
Personally, I think fantastical creatures need at least SOME human characteristics—otherwise they become too foreign to interest the reader.
Dave, dear, some of us haven't seen any of the seasons of BSG because it's only available here on satellite tv and therefore yes it is a spoiler. Not everyone is American. Please try to remember that.
Nathaniel Philbrick's "In the Heart of the Sea" is about the whale that inspired Moby Dick--it stove in a whaling ship and left the survivors adrift.
See, research can stop you looking like you don't know what you're talking about!
EE,
I'm glad this Q & A was up at the top of your blog for a while, just under your Saturday Short(s).
It's been really enjoyable, reading through the long comment trail. Maybe we could do this every weekend - have a writing discussion questio that stays under your Shorts, close to the top so people can see it? Just a thought.
Gee it's well before my caffeine and sugar.
How can BSG finding earth be a spoiler when it happened in the original series in 1978-79?
I'm sorry I spoiled your waiting for the obvious. Were you two surprised when you went to see the movie "Titanic" that the ship sank? I've been through this before. This type of indignation once went on for a year while I was working and it only served to squelch discussion.
Again to return to the discussion of character in writing and using real life events, the more a writer can make their characters seem like real people, the better the story will be. So this early in the morning I would say if you know of a good reaction or situation from real life, don't worry about using it. Just be sure that you are not being nasty to the real person involved or mocking them (or getting even).
Dave, even if you use the defense of BGS having found earth during the original series (which I don't think is correct -- they just missed finding it, I believe, and it was 30 of their years later in BSG 1980 when they finally stumbled upon our little planet), the condition in which earth is found would still be a spoiler. That isn't how the original series ended at all.
Buffy and Xenith -- never fear! The episode does have plot points and a few surprises that will be well worth your time.
As far as the characterization question goes, I don't get some commenters' answers. The questioner very clearly asks about characterizing in "fiction based on personal experiences," not about characterization in purely fictional works. If it's a fictionalized memoir, that is a trickier task than simply borrowing characteristics from real people to attribute to made-up characters.
So, I'd think you would indeed change names and identifying details at the very least. Another trick some authors use is to combine multiple people into just one character, just as you might compress events that really happened over several years into, say, a month to add more tension to the story. Or perhaps split a very complex person into two characters in your book. As long as you're not calling it memoir, you can play pretty loose with the facts in order to make the story more compelling.
When you are including a scene in a short story or a novel, one of the things you have ot ask yourself is does it illuminate the character and does it advance the plot.
A silly or embarrassing event that happened to your friend might not advance that character. It might be funny but it can quickly become filler in a story. If the circumstance does fit your character, then use it but own up to it when your friend reads the story and you can say that whatever happened good was for the story and your friend isn't shamed.
If it is a serious event (like death) and the reason I turn to serious events is that in most stories, we are subjecting the characters to bad things to watch them crash into little pieces. The question might be, how far down can you bring your character before he/she turns into Job (and cliche). When we write a plot point that things are bad, the world is going to end, the character's loved ones are going to die... how far down can you take them? Can you strip them of everything and make it seem real? Can you take away every belief they had and make them think it's all false? It's all useless? Can you drive the character into the void and then give them the strength to rise again? How many times can you do this before they break and give up?
We see these harsh circumstances in real life. Mostly we see people finding the strength to live and go on after a tragedy. Now some of us have seen the opposite -- people who fall into drugs, alcohol and despair. If you see one of those powerful events, you can and should use it at an appropriate time. If it is good for the story, then you have to suffer the possibility of losing a friend. But you can explain all this to the friend, gently and carefully and make them understand the good of what you wrote. To say to a friend, you came back and you lived but my character didn't have your strength, is a compliment. To say to a character, your struggle inspired me so much I wanted to share it with others, is a compliment.
But Dave, we weren't discussing BSG here; you introduced it. And anyway, yes, I know perfectly that they did find Earth in the original series, but it wasn't blasted. As I remember, it was full of annoying children.
The comparison with Titanic is hardly valid, given that was based on well-known real life events.
Aw Buffy please let it be. I'm sorry. I'll grovel at your feet if that helps. You win. I did something wrong. bad boy, bad boy. But now can we get back to the discussion.
Well, then, to sum up: There's a little Evil Editor in everyone you know:choose wisely among the attributes with which you imbue your characters, and give accolades accordingly.
And apparently, there's a possible spoiler for those who are behind on their episodes of Battle Star Galactica.
Meri
Nicely put.
I wish I could remember where I read it, or who wrote it, but someone I read said that people won't recognise themselves if you use their bad traits in a novel, because nobody believes they HAVE bad traits; conversely, people you know will see themselves in all sorts of characters that you didn't base on them. So why worry?
Not entirely unrelated: Don't Use Thai Royalty in Your Novel!
I'm a few months late on this post, but I feel like talking, even if it's to thin air.
I've found that I do often write what I know, intentionally or unintentionally. Telling on somebody at my lunch table who had drugs at home led obliquely to a spy story. My creative writing teacher, a famous, historical figure, and I all popped up in one story's MC, and two conversations I've had will make the transition from women's rights to slavery. Subjects I'm interested in--abortion and Islam, for instance--form stories of their own.
And yet you might never guess it. A spy story, a Civil War-inspired fantasy, and numerous short stories. Situations, feelings, etc. can bridge the gap from life to fiction. I write about different worlds, things I've never seen or experienced, but I already know it. I know how an alien feels, stranded on Earth, because I know how I felt, alone in a classroom of 20. Et cetera.
Post a Comment