Thirteen Years of a Busy Woman's LifeAlec-Tweedie, Mrs. (Ethel)
General
Thirteen Years of a Busy Woman's Life
Alec-Tweedie, Mrs. (Ethel)
Alec-Tweedie, Mrs. (Ethel), -1940; Great Britain -- Intellectual life -- 20th century
Royalty and really great folk—that is great-minded people in high
places—do not carp at the clothes of those whose work in life is harder
than showing off new and expensive dresses. Thank goodness, the days
are long dead when writers were supposed to exist on the sufferance of
publishers, to be always ragged, in debt, or to fawn on patrons and
live in Grub Street.
Still, this is forestalling the account of my laborious, weary time
before achieving anything, so it must be put down in faithful warning
that “good times” have to be worked and waited for.
I often wonder now how I lived through those first years of hardship,
paying off debts, working often ten hours a day with the constant goal
of making an income and achieving success.
Poverty or ambition are the only stepping-stones to attainment.
Perseverance did it, and bed. On and on I pegged. Wrote and re-wrote
some things several times over, while others were not even corrected.
Worked with throbbing eyes and weary brain—I’ve always been more or
less a teetotaller, but it wasn’t that which helped me—it was bed.
Never a good sleeper at any time, I crept off to bed as early as
possible, and even if I did not sleep, I rested my back, closed my
eyes, and lay in the dark. Most of my work was planned then, all my
articles were thought out in that silent obscurity. My bed was my
salvation.
Lots of people work best in the evening and the small hours of the
morning. I was never any good then, and if “copy” had to be ready, say,
by eleven at night, and I knew a “printer’s devil” would be standing in
my hall at that hour to bear it away to the machines, I always got hot
and cold, nervous and fussy; I never worked so well as directly after
breakfast.
Work! Would anyone dare to say I have not worked? Why, in one fortnight
(November, 1906) I see I had long signed articles in the _Queen_,
_Daily Chronicle_, _Observer_, _Daily Mail_, and _Tatler_. Five
important papers, besides unsigned articles in others.
“What does a signed article imply?” someone may wonder. It means
double, treble, quadruple pay—as compared with an unsigned one. It
means the writer’s name is of value, and sufficiently established to
say what he thinks and means right out, instead of sending his poisoned
darts unofficially in the disguise of anonymity. All articles and
reviews ought to be signed, I think. One takes more care, gives more
thought, attains a higher standard than for anonymous stuff. Leaders
and critiques would be of real value if one knew who had written them.
Ease has come, facility of the pen. I believe I could write an article
on almost any sort of subject with five minutes’ notice, and twenty
minutes in which to dictate it. It is so easy to write on a theme which
you never really touch on at all, but just glide along the outside
edge. Things conceived like this cannot be of permanent value, but they
are the product of an active brain and serve their purpose for the
moment. That is journalism.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account