HANDWRITING OF FAMOUS NOVELISTS

Evening Star, Issue 15513, 8 June 1914, Page 5

HANDWRITING OF FAMOUS NOVELISTS

At the annual dinfter -of the English "correctors of the Press "/Sir F. Newiies (who occupied the chair) said that the work of the committee was a very admirable and worthy one—-to help those proofreaders who, through advancing years and other circumstances* were not able to look after themselves. As they all knew proofreaders to be a very hard-working and Worthy class of people, those connected with newspaper enterprises were only too glad to support such a work as that which the committee had in hand. '(Hear, heaV.) Those of them who studied books and papers .generally could not help being struck with the excellent way in which the proof-reading was done. Of course, in the case oi books and magazines, which were read at leisure, there was no reason why there should bo any typographical errors; but it was remarkable that in the case of daily newspapers, brought out at great pressure, one did not find more errors than ono did. One of the disadvantages of a proof-reader's life was that he had to suffer a great deal from bad handwriting. He said this with all diffidence, because he believed the chief' offenders in this respect were some of the most popular novel-writers of the day. Wishing to get some informtaion on this point, he recently questioned certain proofreaders. He asked • " What about Sir ArthurConan Doyle?" "Oh!" was the reply, "he is splendid; in fact, he is the proof-reader's friend." Mr. Wells was described as "good, but not quite so good as Sir Conan Doyle"; while Mr W. W. Jacobs was said to be "very tricky'." When, however, a proof-reader was asked what he thought of Mr Charles Garvice's handwriting he went red and then white, and stammered ani shuffled, and at last replied: " Well, Mr Garvice is fairly good." He really believed the proofreader was doing his best for Mr Garvice, and that what he actually meant was that his handwriting was very bad. Mr W. L. Courtney,"in responding for journalism, said that there was one consideration which might be of interest to them at the present moment. In one sense journalism was at its best in a crisis ;in another sense it was not. As they were well aware, at the present time they were going through a most difficult period in their history. Assuredly they would find journalism at its best, because it was full of life, full of ardor to maintain valuable principles held to bo of unique service to the State. But there crept in now and thea a little touch of animosity and bitterness which was really alien from the best traditions of journalism. For himself, he was proud to think that the journals of this country of every political hue and opinion were instinctively generous to their political opponents, and did not stoop to unworthy accusations unfounded on the sheer logical arguments of the case. At the same time there was prevalent the fighting instinct as exemplified by the saying "This is not a matter for kid gloves," and other hoary mottoes invented in the old bad days. And this instinct of fighting sometimes revealed an rcrid pu<yiacity that was to be deplored, which the b£-.t journals should combine to exclude from their columns.

Mr C. Garvice, who also responded, mentioned incidentally that he dictated his matter to a typewriter, and that when one was killed lie got another. (Laughter.) He added that it was marvellous how sixpenny and sevenpenny books could be turned out in thousands with scarcely a single error. This was wonderful work, and as near perfection as anything could possibly be. The strain upon both the eyesight and the brain of proof-readers was very gre<a£, and surely when these persons who had rendered so much service to literary men fell on evil days the least they could do was to put their hands in their pockets to help them.