THE DIFFERENT EYE
By EDWARD ANTON.
,rIARLYLE, in the opening book of his " French ••••• Revolution," takes occasion to remark :- " To Newton and to Newton's Dog Diamond, what a different pair of Universes ; while the painting on the optical retina of both was, most likely, the same ! " -A sentence earlier Carlyle gives precise point to this remark :- " In every object there is inexhaustible meaning; the eye sees in it what the eye brings means of seeing." The journalist, or the would-be journalist, will do well to think out the full significance of these observations.. They embody a truth which is not remembered so faith- fully as it deserves to be—that no two pair of eyes see alike. In its way, that is the most cheerful and encouraging truth that can be presented to anyone who aspires to write for the Press, for it assures him that, whatever else may happen, he can never lack subject- matter. A topic may have been written about nine hundred and ninety-nine times, and along comes the thousandth man and gives it a fresh aspect, by treating it from his own viewpoint.
The most everyday subject in the world is thus— from the journalist's point of view—incapable of being exhausted.
No two people see precisely alike. One man may see a group of chimney-pots simply as chimney-pots, whilst another finds human similitudes in their groupings and shapes ; or they may be viewed critically with the eye of an architect, an artist, or a builder ; or you may weave romances around the inhabitants of the rooms below, or, again, if you are statistically disposed, calculate the cost of the burnt wood and coal represented by their smoke- emissions, or you may perhaps indulge yourself in imagining the culinary savours transmitted skyward by them; or you might conceivably take a prophetic turn and visualize a city of, say, 2000 A.D., without smoke or chimneys ; or, on the other hand, you may go backwards in •history and imagine -the circumstances in which the use of -chimneys was first discovered and applied.
Yes, indeed—even a commonplace such as chimneys will supply endless material for articles—according to your viewpoint. This supplies the most effective answer to -those who suggest that the journalist is ever in danger of " running dry."
The real danger for the beginner is, of course, not that he will ever lack material, but that he will, at the outset, imprison himself within stone walls by imitating. Imitation is the biggest pitfall which confronts the young ,writer. It has been fatal to many who, had they but had the courage to write of things as they saw them and as they viewed and understood them, might have gone very far in the profession. • - The first piece of advice I give, invariably, to those who consult me is, BE YOURSELF; use your different eye "; express what you think and feel, no matter how .violently your thoughts, views, and opinions conflict with those of eminent or popular writers. The Press does not want its newer contributors to re-echo what established writers have already said. It wants new views, new angles, new-thoughts, new suggestions,-new opinions. So does the Public : a stale presentment of view repels readers. Editors recognize this and act accordingly : - which may explain to many why their contributions have been "-declined with thanks."
Get these facts firmly fixed in your mind, and act upon them. Be yourself first of all. Use your own eyes; • not those of other men. Set down no thoughts which are not honestly your own. Re-examine everything; re- • express everything; re-criticize everything; re-arrange everything. Then, and then only, will you be able to write the kind of articles which Editors want. you will find other, and equally important, conse- quences of this visual and mental independence. You will cease to write of things at second (or third) hand, and thus you will avoid another of the pitfalls that await the eager beginner. Nobody can write effectively about things with which he has never come in direct contact; such work lacks " atmosphere " because it lacks know-, ledge. There are thousands of young men and women who have yet to learn this elementary truth—aspiring writers who believe that an occasional Bismillah " with a second-hand description of a sandy desert make a " Shiekli " story, or that a plumed hat, a rapier, and a " Mordieu '" is the secret of a D'Artagnan. Whatever, you write about you must know first-hand or must study, first-hand.
One of the first cares of the instructors at the London School of Journalism is to establish these principles in the minds of its students, and the pains taken in this vital matter are typical of the conscientious efforts made, throughout the entire Course, to draw out the latent individual talent of each student. That is why the School achieves success where any stereotyped plan of instruc- tion would inevitably fail. My original objection to journalistic instruction by correspondence was due to my recognition of the utter futility of stereotyped criticism and standardized teaching; but, of course, the London School of Journalism has changed all this and, as might be expected in an institution fathered by the greatest journalist of modern times—the late Lord Northcliffe— everything is done which is calculated to foster the individuality of each student.
You cannot turn out finished journalists by any system of standardized teaching, because the journalist must be, first and foremost, an individual. Remember he is not an artisan working with tools of precision, but an artist expressing something of himself. Thus, to teach him successfully, you must first apply yourself to studying him in order to ascertain what difference there is in him worth bringing out..
In other words, the teacher of journalism must first be the student of his pupil's personality. That is the method which is pursued with such remarkable success by the instructors working under Mr. Max Pemberton, and, in my opinion, it is the only method which will ever achieve any measure of satisfaction to teacher or student.
I have never encouraged the idea that the world of letters lies at the feet of just anyone who will " pay a fee and take a course." It is not everyone—or nearly everyone—who can write : it would be mischievous, to say the least, to foster that delusion. But I do know that for those whom literary work attracts, opportunities were never more numerous or more open than now.
If you have the " urge " to write, I suggest that your wisest plan is not to rush, either into amateurish assaults upon editorial favour or into enrolment for a course of instruction.
Do neither.. Secure, first of all, a competent opinion upon some MS. of your own : and I know of none who is more competent to give such an opinion than Mr. Max Pemberton. If he advises you against pursuing- your literary attempts any further, you will do well to act accordingly. If, on the other hand, he gives a favourable opinion, then I can recommend you, confidently, to take a Course at the London School of Journalism as the safest means to the end you have in view. • EDWARD ANTON.
Previous page
