I have always
thought that, as an author, it is wise to ‘write what you know’. However, in a
world where information is literally at our fingertips, an author can write on
any topic they choose. Research is simply a Google search away.
Lately I have been
contemplating the value of writing from experience versus writing from
research. Being a contemporary fiction writer, I have the advantage of both
modern setting and imagination, so a lot of my personal experiences and
feelings are easily incorporated onto the pages of my work. These advantages
aside, it is still fair to say that there has been an element of my writing
that has come from research. For instance, in my work there are places I have
written about that I haven’t visited personally. I wonder - without that
personal experience, does that make them sound less authentic to the reader?
Historical writers
rely heavily on research for setting and story-line. Having to set a story in an
era they haven’t lived in is a task that so many authors do well. Although, I
have also read some historical novels where, although clearly well researched,
the story falls flat and lacks heart.
After much
contemplation on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that it is a good
thing to write what you know, but it doesn't matter how much personal
experience you have incorporated, or the amount of highly tuned research you
have done, nothing will make up for the lack of passion in an author’s work.
So, does passion trump knowledge?
This leads me to
another wonderful saying: ‘write what you love’.
What do you think?
Is passion for what you write more important than personal experience? When
research is a necessity, will no amount of it make up for a lack of passion?
I would love to
hear your thoughts.
Rose Dee is the author of the 'Resolution' series and co-author of The Greenfield Legacy.
Visit Rose at:






















