Nigel Humphreys at Russkiy Mir bookshop reading from his two published books of poetry and his forthcoming book, Of Moment.
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Different Drums
The group, post performance |
"If
a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different
drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far
away."
As poets we are all very different - each dancing to his or her own music - but without totally losing pace with each other as we all share an idea of what good poetry is and strive to achieve it, each in our own way.
Mike |
Marc |
Tina |
Nigel |
Hilaire |
Wednesday, 19 September 2012
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
Tina at Russkiy Mir: Videos
Tina reading Dragons of the Pool
Tina reads Jam on the Butter Knife & Class Reunion
Alex Metslov interviews Tina
Tina reads Aftermath and Adladd
Tina reads Aftermath and Adladd
Monday, 13 August 2012
Tina at Russkiy Mir
Just a reminder that Tina will be reading in London this Friday, 17th August:
"In close association with Russkiy Mir, Gruntlers' Theatre is proud to host an evening with the poetess Ms. Tina Warren. Known for her evocations of female consciousness, not to mention Tina's sense of time and place, this reading will introduce the full range of her exploratory work to our London audience."
Venue: Russkiy Mir Bookshop
20 Goodge Street, W1T 2PL London
Time: 18:00 until 19:30
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Poetic Appearance
Beware ! Beware !
His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk ofParadise .
His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of
These, as everyone knows, are the final lines of Kubla Khan
and perhaps Coleridge’s dramatic idealised description of what a poet might
look like. I was standing with a colleague
in an office window looking out one day onto a side street in Aberystwyth and I
spotted one of my fellow poets from the Word Distillery. “Ah, there’s one of our poets,” says I. To which my colleague replied, “Really, you
wouldn’t know.” Clearly this particular
poet didn’t live up to her idea of what a poet should/ would look like. Hilaire also tells a similar story pertaining
to myself. When she mentioned me as a
poet to a mutual acquaintance – someone I had known for many years but who didn’t
know I wrote poetry – the reply was: “But he just looks like an ordinary
person!”
It’s a sad fact to me that we live in an age when
presentation has it almost every time over substance. Talentless people are increasingly becoming
famous for being famous, often because they‘ look’ as though they’ve got
talent, which usually means they’re easy on the eye, the camera loves
them. It’s quite ludicrous of course to
expect that the beauty and vision any human mind is capable of creating and expressing
could possibly be reflected in its physical nest. The mind may have virtual appearance via its
expositions but that’s all it can aspire to.
It exists dimensionless and totally unrelated to physical appearance.
Coleridge, besides being a fine poet, was a great orator and
literary critique. But on my study wall to the right of my desk I have a large lithograph
of him in his mid fifties and there is no way I can see a wonderfully creative
incisive mind reflected in the face of an overweight, cherub cheeked, squat
little man who is greying faster than his years. He looks jolly, not deep. And you can bet
that the portrait flatters him. As a young man we do see him with long black
locks but there is nothing exceptional about his ‘ordinary’ face. The eyes do not flash – unlikely considering
the amount of laudanum he was daily consuming.
Byron and Shelly of course, with their early nineteenth
century film star looks (if you’ll forgive the anachronism of a twentieth
century concept), I suppose go some way towards wearing a marketable muse on
their sleeves, Rupert Brook comes to mind too.
But they are exceptions and no way the best of poets. Certainly not in Coleridge’s league. Your Larkins, Hopkins, Eliots, Plaths,
Tennysons, Masefields, Duffys, Drydens . . . are all ‘ordinary’ looking people,
less than ordinary in some cases. Elizabeth
Barrett Browning was mousy and plain – from all the pictures I’ve seen of her
she doesn’t look as though she’s got an iambic pentameter in her. George Mackay
Brown and WH Auden were fine poets but ugly men who wouldn’t look out of place
as bookie’s runners or bagmen. Pope was only
four and a half feet tall and Dylan Thomas had a certain cartoon character look
about him – did that slapstick face really write – ‘Do not go gentle into that
good night’!
No one would have looked twice at any of them in the street. There was nothing which might suggest they
had any sort of talent, and certainly no indication of those exceptionally rare
minds within. And yet it appears that
there is an ideal in the public’s perception of what a poet should look like – there
is an ultimate poet. Dare I suggest - moody,
unapproachable, slightly mad, prone to fits of depression or paranoia, bad social
manners, rude due to poor people skills, opinionated - probably left wing, unkempt,
little sartorial sense, heavy drinker . . .
Blimey, I’ve just described Will
Self.
Nigel Humphreys
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)