John Irving recently
commented on advice to writers often attributed to Ernest Hemingway, who purportedly said, “Write what you know.” Irving said that it was “… a horrible
limitation to put on the novel or play.
Don’t learn anything. Why don’t
you just say that?”
Ernest Hemingway, Writer & Pugilist |
No doubt there would be a great battle of egos if they were
contemporaries. Given their love of
proving their physical superiority — Hemingway the boxer and Irving the wrestler
—might have had to “get ready to rumble!”
In this case, I think Hemingway’s advice was right and Irving got it
wrong. I doubt Hemingway would suggest
writers “stop learning.” Seems to me he
was trying to tell writers that they should know what they are talking about. That
in no way keeps us from learning more about anything or certainly the subjects
we intend to engage — at least to the extent we engage them. Nothing wrong with research.
The other night I watched CSI New York. I gave up on
the CSIs some time ago. I tuned in
because the promos showed that part of the show took place in San Francisco. I suspect many people are curious to see how the
places they live are reflected on screen. In this case, I’m not sure why CSI
bothered. They got everything
wrong.
John Irving, Writer & Wrestler |
For starters, there are no cable cars anywhere near Haight
Ashbury. Nor is there a corner of Fulton
and Page. The two streets run parallel. And
of course we have all sorts of young hippies according to the recent episode. The problem is there really aren’t any young hippies. Hippies, bless them, those that remain, are
on social security. At the end of the
episode, one of the New York characters is invited back to the city by the Bay to
continue a romance. She says she’s not sure she fits in with blue skies and
suntans. There are blue skies here from
time to time and they are especially prized because of their infrequency. But more to the point, you won’t find very
many, if any, tanned San Franciscans. In
the case of geography, the truth was only a Google map away and with regard to
other social and environmental observations, perhaps a brief conversation with
someone who lived here might have helped.
Next time I try to set a realistic story in New York, I’ll just put some
coconut palms and flamingoes along the Hudson River and the corner of Park
Avenue and Lexington.
Not only did the show provide false information, it left
those of us familiar with the city a reason not to suspend our disbelief with
regard to the story. So, I’m with the school
of “write what you know.”
I know there is a much larger interpretation to the
discussion surrounding “write what you know,” than merely getting the geography
right — and certainly you can write about what you imagine. You don’t have to die to write a murder scene
is also true. But there is a word,
authenticity, that is bandied about now. It’s one of the few trendy words I like. Unless the writer invents a city, he or she
should get the street names right.
Unless the writer invents a universe or is otherwise playing with such
things as gravity or the doors of perception, it seems that knowing the subject
matter is a kind of minimal expectation.
It seems to me it is hard to convince a reader or a viewer about
anything when you get a lot of it wrong.
3 comments:
Well said.
Re all that pugilism: Having just finished Paris Wife and Moveable Feast (last month's book group) all I can say is I'm with Hadley.
Fun stuff. They must have meant San Francisco, Florida.
The pugilist pic reminds me of what Hemingway wrote in his review of Nelson Algren's THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM:
"Algren can hit with both hands and move around and he will kill you if you are not awfully careful."
Post a Comment