[E_Moon]

This is a false battle, really, but I wanted to start a discussion of the value of experience in writing fiction. We all know it takes imagination: that's a given. But experience? We're told that so-and-so's book is so good because he or she "had been there." Then we're told that reclusive writers with good imagination can just make it up and still get it right.

My own opinion is that experience gives you the facts, and imagination illuminates them and makes them interesting--you can see connections that third-hand accounts won't prick your brain into making. What kind of experience? All experience. But for a specific story, specific experiences are weighted more heavily. If you want to write a story in an animal-powered culture, it helps to have experience with draft animals. If you want someone in the story to be making bread, it helps if you're the family baker.

[Hereford Eye]

Characters glue readers to stories. No character, no story. No interesting (to that reader) character, no reader.
You have experience of other folk but what you experience is their behavior and can only guess at the motivation for that behavior. The longer you live the more behavior you encounter and the more understanding of that behavior you accumulate. Since you don't want to wait till you've lived sufficiently long - I may not be there yet and I've been at this living stuff a long time now - to start writing, then you must acquire a different kind of experience.
For me, the more important experience is reading. The more I read, the more I see of human behavior and why folk act the way they do. The closer I can get to making character behavior/motivation recognizable, the better chance of acquiring reader empathy and interest. On the other hand, attempting to write about a young woman with schizo-affective disorder, although I have observed much behavior, imagination must play a larger role as I try to get a handle on what is happening in her head and why. I can read as much as I dare but I still think it will end up with imagination playing the larger role. It will be imagination based on my own nightmares, my own encounter with what must have been an intimation with the DTs, but, still, my imagination.

[Scorpion]

Nowadays you can find almost any information on the internet. You can read about the experience of others and then adapt it for your story.

Yes, this is a false battle. It should be Experience + Imagination.

Experiencing it yourself is without doubt better than making it up or reading about it. For example, ever felt that joy when a cake comes out of the oven and turns out to be just perfect? You can read about how to make cakes all you want, and imagine what it must be like, but you might not think of such a detail.
Let's apply that to a more serious situation: a child who tries to commit suicide, despite being loved by his/her parents. How do the parents feel? Your imagination can guess here, and probably get it right, but it's still only guessing.

I don't want to say that experience is more important than imagination, though. A good author can do without experience. He'll slip into the mind of all of his characters, look at the situation from every possible point of view and deliver a truly precise story. That's how it's done most of the time, I think.

[suibom]

A negative reaction to something will often cry out far louder than a positive one. That being said, trying to handle some subjects with imagination alone, without experience, may result in things not fitting properly.

It may be exquisite writing and very logical, but for someone reading it who has experience, they are likely to become dislodged from the story. If that occurs, any discussion of the story may result in them discussing the points that did not make sense, drawing attention to the flaws and having others see cracks. Sometimes it doesn't amount to much, but sometimes it can crush a story.

As an easy example, take a look at old sci-fi. Some of the stories that were once fanciful and acceptable, when the general experience was not there for the readers, are now laughable and difficult to consume. Imagination is absolutely important, but there's really no substitute for the authority that comes with experience.

Peace,
- Sui

[Hereford Eye]

...there's really no substitute for the authority that comes with experience.
Seems to dismiss a good portion of the sff realm that must be based on imagination. Take for example, how many humans have walked on the moon? Does that mean one can't listen to their descriptions, watch the film, and imagine what it must have felt like? Or can only astronauts legitimately write about walking on the moon? How about hobbits? Who can write how it feels to be a hobbit? Or elves or fairies or trolls or orcs or little boys and girls attending wizard school or worlds where lions and gryphons live side by side and talk to each other or vampires and werewolves or women wearing scarlet letters or... oh, hell, you get the idea.

[tmso]

Yes, this is a false battle. It should be Experience + Imagination.

I agree with Scorpion here. I do think that experience helps, but ultimately, we all interpret our experiences differently. Two folks experiencing the exact same shell shock in a war trench may have two different reactions. You may get it right for one person, and not the other. So a little imagination to cover for lack of experience might be fine for one reader and not another. Can't please everyone.

(Did any of that make sense?)

[suibom]

Seems to dismiss a good portion of the sff realm that must be based on imagination.
When quoted the way it was, with just that snippet, then yes, it does dismiss much. But that was not all I said. My point is that, when measured against experience, imagination will often not be enough.

Take your moon example. If someone were to write a chase seen on the moon, with no experience at all and working solely on imagination, do you think that description would be immersive to someone who has actually worked on the moon and knows what it really feels like? Mythical creatures, sure, those are free to play with, there is no experience to measure up against there. Wizard school? Well, Harry Potter is laughable magic, yes ("oculus repairum" makes me giggle every time).

As I said, imagination is absolutely important. But faking experience just won't measure up to folks that have knowledge of the subject (and yes, research does give some experience).

[kmtolan]

Any experience that can be drawn on and worked with is priceless. There are nuances that one would not catch when using little more than their imagination.

Did you know, for instance, that there is a strong smell after an artillery barrage much like as if someone lit off a few thousand fire crackers?

Someone imagining a battle scene might not even consider the olfactory senses. Or think about the constant hissing in your ears after a near impact. A combat veteran would.

It doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to alter and twist these experiences into a futuristic context, but it sure helps to have them to begin with.

Kerry

[Hereford Eye]

The Red Badge of Courage - Stephen Crane
The War Lover - John Hersey
Shogun - James Clavell
Brokeback Mountain - Annie Proulx
Santiago - Mike Resnick
My problem is that - if we just consider subject matter - none of these folk experienced what they wrote about but the human emotions they portray are as real as any ever done. Crane's book, in particular, held up considerably well for all those who had experienced the actual circumstances he described.
Experience + imagination seems right. Neither side seems more important than the other but both sides require something from the other.

[E_Moon]

)snip)
For me, the more important experience is reading. The more I read, the more I see of human behavior and why folk act the way they do. The closer I can get to making character behavior/motivation recognizable, the better chance of acquiring reader empathy and interest. On the other hand, attempting to write about a young woman with schizo-affective disorder, although I have observed much behavior, imagination must play a larger role as I try to get a handle on what is happening in her head and why. I can read as much as I dare but I still think it will end up with imagination playing the larger role. It will be imagination based on my own nightmares, my own encounter with what must have been an intimation with the DTs, but, still, my imagination.

You bring up an interesting point about human nature/behavior/psychology--how to convey that--and in a specific context I wasn't thinking of (but should've been) when I started this topic. What sparked it for me was a discussion on military fiction that completely ignored whether the writers involved had any military background, and the experience (with both horse stuff and military stuff) of having readers believe something factually wrong because they liked the ignorant writers' work.

When I was a kid, writing the imitative stories that kids usually do write, my understanding of human behavior was, um, limited, and came mostly from books. Though I read books well above my age or school grade, I lacked the experience with people to know whether the writer had any--whether the behavior of grownups, in particular, was really like that and really motivated by the reasons the author gave. Without getting out--of my own head, of my age group, my town, my region, etc.--I might still think James Bond was typical of spies. Reading (ideally reading that includes many eras and genres) is crucial, but not as you say imagination has to connect with it--and I think experience does also.

The kind of experience that provides solid grounding comes most from personal experience beyond reading, I think. Imagination can provide analogies to other experience, in some cases, but not everywhere and not completely--analogies are not complete. Readers themselves have a wide range of experiences, and can be intolerant of things in books that don't match...one of the best compliments a writer can receive is acknowledgment by those who have more experience that the writer "got it right." When the farmer thinks you've got not just the physical farm but the attitudes of farm people right--when the soldier thinks you've got not just the theoretical tactics but the feel of being in that kind of combat right--then it's proof that experience (however gained) and imagination have joined fruitfully.