I think being good at writing is about a lot more than being good at language, structure and mechanics
I think being good at writing is about a lot more than being good at language and structure and mechanics and all. I mean, obviously those things are important – they’re the tools of the trade, I guess. But like any with other art form, I think curiosity and the ability to be observant are more important, and I love reading things written by people who clearly notice things.
I’ve said this before, but I think worrying about creativity is kind of overrated. I don’t think of myself as a particularly creative person. I usually feel like my ideas are obvious and inevitable, and I’m just stubborn enough to follow through with them more often than the average person. For example, one of my favourite projects I’ve done can be summed up by “I took pictures of my street for two years.”
Curiosity, however? I’m deeply suspicious of people claiming to be artists who aren’t driven by curiosity on some level.
It’s funny because this attitude seems completely flipped for scientists. I think most people just expect scientists to be very curious people, but they actually also value originality and creativity (they call this “novelty”) quite a bit, which is why for years I’ve said that I don’t feel creative enough to be a scientist.