The 'Write About What You Know' Myth

There's been a mini backlash against the old adage about writing about what you know recently. And I'm right behind it.

The only thing I like about rules is breaking them. When it comes to writing, anyway.
(I'm a law abiding citizen of course, allegedly.)

But writing about what you know is so limiting, not to mention potentially dull, unless you've got SAS, KGB or FBI on your CV.

I know shit about travelling into space to hunt down an asteroid made of diamond. So is that what I've written in The Money Star? (Yes, some might think it's shit.)

Surely we should be writing about WHO we know. Combining traits from people we're close to, have met or have seen on a train to form recognisable characters (not too recognisable though - like I said, I abide by that thing called the law.)

Then we should be putting these characters into places and situations that are created or enriched by our imaginations. Shouldn't we?

Next in this almost certain to be shortlived series of rule breaking posts: The 'Never Start A Book With Dialogue' Myth or something more interesting.