They ask me: "Did you find it very hard to get on and to become a success?"
And I have to admit that if I can be said to have got on, and if I can be called
a success, then I did not find it hard.
I never starved in a garret, nor waited in anguish for the post to bring me
an answer from editor or publisher, nor did I struggle in sweat and blood to
bring forth mighty works, nor did I ever wake up and find myself famous.
I was a poor boy. I ought to have wrestled in the fell clutch of
circumstance, and undergone the bludgeonings of chance before I became a writer
with a very modest income and a very questionable reputation. But I didn't. It
all happened by itself and without any groans from me.
It seems a pity. Because I was undoubtedly a poor boy of the working classes,
with no apparent future in front of me. But after all, what am I now?
I was born among the working classes and brought up among them. My father was
a collier, and only a collier, nothing praiseworthy about him. He wasn't even
respectable, in so far as he got drunk rather frequently, never went near a
chapel, and was usually rather rude to his little immediate bosses at the pit.
He practically never had a good stall all the time he was a butty, because he
was always saying tiresome and foolish things about the men just above him in
control at the mine. He offended them all, almost on purpose, so how could he
expect them to favour him? Yet he grumbled when they didn't.
My mother was, I suppose, superior. She came from town, and belonged really
to the lower bourgeoisie. She spoke King's English, without an accent, and never
in her life could even imitate a sentence of the dialect which my father spoke,
and which we children spoke out of doors.
She wrote a fine Italian hand, and a clever and amusing letter when she felt
like it. And as she grew older she read novels again, and got terribly impatient
with Diana of the Crossways and terribly thrilled by East Lynne.
But she was a working man's wife, and nothing else, in her shabby little
black bonnet and her shrewd, clear, "different" face. And she was very much
respected, just as my father was not respected. Her nature was quick and
sensitive, and perhaps really superior. But she was down, right down in the
working class, among the mass of poorer colliers' wives.
I was a delicate pale brat with a snuffy nose, whom most people treated quite
gently as just an ordinary delicate little lad. When I was twelve I got a county
council scholarship, twelve pounds a year, and went to Nottingham High School.
After leaving school I was a clerk for three months, then had a very serious
pneumonia illness, in my seventeenth year, that damaged my health for life.
A year later I became a school-teacher, and after three years' savage
teaching of collier lads I went to take the "normal" course in Nottingham
As I was glad to leave school, I was glad to leave college. It had meant mere
disillusion, instead of the living contact of men. From college I went down to
Croydon, near London, to teach in a new elementary school at a hundred pounds a
It was while I was at Croydon, when I was twenty-three, that the girl who had
been the chief friend of my youth, and who was herself a school-teacher in a
mining village at home, copied out some of my poems, and without telling me,
sent them to the English Review, which had just had a glorious re-birth
under Ford Madox Hueffer.
Hueffer was most kind. He printed the poems, and asked me to come and see
him. The girl had launched me, so easily, on my literary career, like a princess
cutting a thread, launching a ship.
I had been tussling away for four years, getting out The White Peacock
in inchoate bits, from the underground of my consciousness. I must have written
most of it five or six times, but only in intervals, never as a task or a divine
labour, or in the groans of parturition.
I would dash at it, do a bit, show it to the girl; she always admired it;
then realize afterwards it wasn't what I wanted, and have another dash. But at
Croydon I had worked at it fairly steadily, in the evenings after school.
Anyhow, it was done, after four or five years' spasmodic effort. Hueffer
asked at once to see the manuscript. He read it immediately, with the greatest
cheery sort of kindness and bluff. And in his queer voice, when we were in an
omnibus in London, he shouted in tny ear: "It's got every fault that the English
novel can have."
Just then the English novel was supposed to have so many faults, in
comparison with the French, that it was hardly allowed to exist at all "But,"
shouted Hueffer in the 'bus, "you've got GENIUS."
This made me want to laugh, it sounded so comical. In the early days they
were always telling me I had got genius, as if to console me for not having
their own incomparable advantages.
But Hueffer didn't mean that. I always thought he had a bit of genius
himself. Anyhow, he sent the MS. of The White Peacock to William
Heinemann, who accepted it at once, and made me alter only four little lines
whose omission would now make anybody smile. I was to have £50 when the book was
Meanwhile Hueffer printed more poems and some stories of mine in the English
Review, and people read them and told me so, to my embarrassment and anger. I
hated being an author, in people's eyes. Especially as I was a teacher.
When I was twenty-five my mother died, and two months later The White Peacock
was published, but it meant nothing to me. I went on teaching for another year,
and then again a bad pneumonia illness intervened. When I got better I did not
go back to school. I lived henceforward on my scanty literary earnings.
It is seventeen years since I gave up teaching and started to live an
independent life of the pen. I have never starved, and never even felt poor,
though my income for the first ten years was no better, and often worse, than it
would have been if I had remained an elementary school-teacher.
But when one has been born poor a very little money can be enough. Now my
father would think I am rich, if nobody else does. And my mother would think I
have risen in the world, even if I don't think so.
But something is wrong, either with me or with the world, or with both of us.
I have gone far and met people, of all sorts and all conditions, and many whom I
have genuinely liked and esteemed.
People, personally, have nearly always been friendly. Of critics we
will not speak, they are different fauna from people. And I have wanted to feel
truly friendly with some, at least, of my fellow-men.
Yet I have never quite succeeded. Whether I get on in the world is a
question; but I certainly don't get on very well with the world. And
whether I am a worldly success or not I really don't know. But I feel, somehow,
not much of a human success.
By which I mean that I don't feel there is any very cordial or fundamental
contact between me and society, or me and other people.
There is a breach. And my contact is with something that is non-human,
I used to think it had something to do with the oldness and the worn-outness
of Europe. Having tried other places, I know that is not so. Europe is, perhaps,
the least worn-out of the continents, because it is the most lived in. A place
that is lived in lives.
It is since coming back from America that I ask myself seriously: Why is
there so little contact between myself and the people whom I know? Why has the
contact no vital meaning?
And if I write the question down, and try to write the answer down, it is
because I feel it is a question that troubles many men.
The answer, as far as I can see, has something to do with class. Class makes
a gulf, across which all the best human flow is lost. It is not exactly the
triumph of the middle classes that has made the deadness, but the triumph of the
As a man from the working class, I feel that the middle class cut off some of
my vital vibration when I am with them. I admit them charming and educated and
good people often enough. But they just stop some part of me from working.
Some part has to be left out.
Then why don't I live with my working people? Because their vibration is
limited in another direction. They are narrow, but still fairly deep and
passionate, whereas the middle class is broad and shallow and passionless. Quite
passionless. At the best they substitute affection, which is the great
middle-class positive emotion.
But the working class is narrow in outlook, in prejudice, and narrow in
intelligence. This again makes a prison. One can belong absolutely to no class.
Yet I find, here in Italy, for example, that I live in a certain silent
contact with the peasants who work the land of this villa. I am not intimate
with them,, hardly speak to them save to say good day. And they are not working
for me; I am not their padrone.
Yet it is they, really, who form my ambiente, and it is from them that
the human flow comes to me. I don't want to live with them in their cottages;
that would be a sort of prison. But I want them to be there, about the place,
their lives going on along with mine, and in relation to mine. I don't idealize
them. Enough of that folly! It is worse than setting school-children to express
themselves in self-conscious twaddle. I don't expect them to make any millennium
here on earth, neither now nor in the future. But I want to live near them,
because their life still flows.
And now I know, more or less, why I cannot follow in the footsteps even of
Barrie or of Wells, who both came from the common people also and are both such
a success. Now I know why I cannot rise in the world and become even a little
popular and rich.
I cannot make the transfer from my own class into the middle class. I cannot,
not for anything in the world, forfeit my passional consciousness and my old
blood-affinity with my fellow-men and the animals and the land, for that other
thin, spurious mental conceit which is all that is left of the mental
consciousness once it has made itself exclusive.
First appeared in the Sunday Dispatch 17th February 1929 as
Reprinted in Phoenix II Heinemann 1968