Sep 02, 2006 23:28
I'm currently wondering how much impact traveling or being rootless has on one's ability to write setting well. If you have not had a consistent relationship with a place... if you haven't gone through the process of peeling the husks of yourself away as you move from child to teen to adult ,all with a single piece of land to bear witness, can you honestly *write* about the experience of having a hometown? Writers tend to get handed the old saw 'Write what you know'. There's a cliche in the phrase definitely, but this idea is passed around for a reason- it has a kernel of truth. If you set a novel in New York City, for example, research will help you fill in the details,and maybe allow you to carry on a bit about Olmstead and Central Park. But will that setting possess resonance, a legitimate sense of Truth? I'm not sure I know how to answer this question.
My Grand Adventure has stirred up an interesting story thread, one that addresses travelers, nomads and wanderers. Not an unusual concept, but it's very different from the other original writing I'm working on. That stuff is very caught up in characters who are working as a group and a network, and who are located within very specific cities. But I have very little experience in cities. Is it more honest or authentic to write what I *do* know, and find the mystery there? I'm not planning on abandoning my characters [as if they'd let me! and really, they are too dear to set aside], but I can't help wondering...
school,
st. happenstance,
yammering me