Writers and Nature Vs. Nurture
I was recently asked something along the lines of what do I think makes a writer? Is it a natural predisposition? Is it a nature thing or a nurture thing? Are good writers born or is it a technical/mechanical thing? Is writing an art or a science?
I thought it was a great bunch of questions that got me thinking. I also have about a million different answers for each of the questions–which indicates that I really don’t know! Anyway, I’ve posted some of my thoughts here:
Do you really want to open to the nature vs. nurture can of worms? I felt that a great deal of the nature vs nurture argument was bunk before I had a child. I felt that the ‘nature’ aspect was a bunch of anomalies gathered together to make an argument. Now, not so much. There is a lot more to the ‘nature’ aspect of the argument than I would like to admit. There is some gender stuff that is totally nature that gets my feminist hackles up. But we won’t go down that path. 
As for writers and nature vs nurture? Well, honestly I have never thought about it. Possibly certain dispositions lend themselves to ‘better’ writing. But then we could get philosophical and ask what is ‘better’? I think everyone can write. Some are just able to express themselves in a ‘better’ or more ‘pleasing’ way that makes sense and is able to reach others on more than a superficial level. This is where the mechanical/technical aspect comes in. Although I could naturally express myself from a young age (language development tends to be a female thing–stupid nature argument coming into play here), my mechanical/technical aspects probably needed help. I think to a certain extent, this can be taught (nurture). But like anything, some are able to grasp this quickly, some are ‘born’ with it (nature?) whereas others can’t ever really achieve the ‘flow’. I guess, really, when it comes down to it, writing is like anything else. Some are good at football, some are good at fixing things, others writing. (Among the zillion other things people can be good at.)
I believe that writing is art grounded in science. If it is merely a science, it is nothing but words. Meaningless. If it is simply art, again, meaningless. You need to combine the two to make something truly dynamic.
What do you think?
