Ian Grant

A Prayer has today received a 5 star review for its current run starring Niall Bishop and directed by David Macintosh Loumgair. The short piece written by Selma Dimitrijevic is currently being staged by Creative Structure at the famous Hen & Chickens Theatre venue in Islington, where it has already received strong feedback from critics and audience members alike.

James McKendrick, the Play’s reviewer said:
“In this, the play’s first London run, Niall Bishop holds the stage as M – a man eschewing the scientific prism through which he has viewed the world to attempt an uneasy dialogue with a creator that he has not previously believed in. Bishop’s performance and David Macintosh Loumgair’s direction are wonderfully controlled and economical in this initial scene. M’s speech is all stuttering fragments and non-sequiturs as he tries to articulate and comprehend a situation at odds with a value system learned over a lifetime.”

To read the full review click here.

Critically acclaimed play A Prayer has been given its London debut by creative industry management company, Creative Structure. The play was written by Selma Dimitrijevic, Artistic Director of Greyscale Theatre, in 2014 and in this – its first ever London run – Prayer’s rich pedigree will be enriched further by the team of upcoming Irish Actor Niall Bishop and Director, David Loumgair, who at just 20yrs old has already this year worked at the Almeida Theatre with Rupert Goold.

Centred around ideas of existence and reality, A Prayer tracks an intimate exchange between a man and God, and challenges its audience to find its own interpretation of belief in an increasingly isolated society. So far those audiences have been extremely strong as so too it seems have their reactions to the play. For more information on this thoughtful piece of theatre click here.

John Dove, not pleased to be spotted emerging from the house of Lady Mary Herbert.

Is Stella Herbert’s charismatic sidekick the real genius behind her audacious bid for a Commons seat or a scandal waiting to happen?

by Paul D. R. Thewunn

Feted in literary circles but little known to most South Thanet voters, poet John Dove is a man of many talents whose recent racy volume is unlikely – to the relief of English teachers up and down the land – to make it onto the A-level syllabus.

Dove is a formidable orator whose words, delivered in his silky and resonant voice, take on the quality of liquid honey. Many have fallen under his spell, and if rumours are to be believed, his sexual exploits make Russell Brand look like Mother Teresa. If he and Stella Herbert cannot keep the closet door firmly bolted, the skeletons are likely to come tumbling out.

Follow the story as it breaks at http://bit.ly/Stella Europa

Dove’s association with Herbert began in the corridors of academia but has now burst onto the streets of East Kent, where the novice Green candidate is aiming to stop Nicholas Formio becoming the British Independence Party’s first UK MP.

In 2013 Dove took up a guest lectureship in Herbert’s philosophy department. From the beginning, his passionate engagement with – and descriptions of – the sufferings of the common man chimed well with her teachings on eighteenth-century ethics. Both share a vision, inspired by the Enlightenment, of a unified humanity that transcends social, political and geographical divisions.

Dove and Herbert have a mountain to climb in South Thanet. Their intellectualism, however passionate and well intentioned, is unlikely to gain much traction against the beery “no more nonsense” blokiness that Nicholas Formio has trademarked. Herbert’s discursions on the economic philosophy of Hume and Smith may inspire voters to do little more than take a nap.

“The country is full.” Formio’s clear and simple message has obvious appeal for voters in South Thanet, where unemployment is over 12%, housing is scarce and primary schools are oversubscribed. Herbert counters that “peace in Europe is an extraordinary achievement, a humane and enlightened project. What the BIP calls ‘low-level immigrants’ are European citizens and fellow human beings who share our rights.”

Dove’s latest collection, Twilit Minglings (Burning Eye, 2014 – available from the Canterbury Gazette Bookshop for £8.99) is an extended meditation on people joining and conjoining. The few moral and political poems aside, it is a book of very erotic verse, full of sucks and slurps and squelches. Especially popular among female readers looking for their next Christian Grey, the book’s sales figures have outstripped those of all Dove’s previous books combined.

On 7 May Stella Herbert will be one of the few women in Britain hoping that she and John Dove do not come to a sticky end.

Follow the story as it breaks at http://bit.ly/Stella Europa

Greens Reveal Stella Herbert as South Thanet Candidate

As polls show surge in support for the BIP, Sir Jack Herbert’s daughter says she is “determined to win”

by Shirley Knott

Professor Stella Herbert announces her candidacy in South Thanet

The Green Party sensationally announced this morning that London philosophy professor Stella Herbert will battle British Independence Party leader Nicholas Formio for the South Thanet seat at this May’s general election.

Follow the debate at http://bit.ly/Stella Europa

The Westminster rumour forge has been at full bellows since the sudden withdrawal of previous Green candidate Olivier Davies last week. A glittering array of stellar names have been linked with the vacant Thanet candidacy – but few foresaw that the stellar name would be Stella. Until now, Professor Herbert has not sought the limelight, and there was much scratching of heads in East Kent this evening. A BIP source referred to “some frantic Googling”.

Professor Herbert’s father, Sir Jack Herbert, was one of the towering figures of late-twentieth-century British politics. A champion of social liberalism, a fervent Europhile and a hero of the intellectual left, Herbert held his West Swindon seat for 31 years until his death in 2012. He was a supreme political manoueverer – even Margaret Thatcher referred to him as “Grandmaster Herbert” – who relished his roustabout Commons clashes with the Conservatives on the opposite benches.

Stella Herbert shares her father’s vision, if not his profile. She has been a passionate political commentator and a powerful voice on the liberal left. Unlike Sir Jack Herbert, though, Stella has preferred to remain cushioned in academia. Many are predicting a mauling at the polls for someone with no experience of political dogfights. Why has she now decided to descend from her ivory tower?

The answer may be simple: to join swords with Nicholas Formio. “The Green Party has a substantial policy agenda that promotes Britain’s active place within the family of peaceful nations in Europe,” Herbert told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning. “The BIP has no policies to put forward on major issues. Nicholas Formio’s misleading and divisive focus on immigration has damaged our public discourse.”

A student of Stella’s who wished to remain anonymous suggested that there might be another factor at play. “John Dove has inspired us all,” he said, referring to the celebrated poet and guest lecturer in Stella’s department. “The grandeur of his vision encompasses the tiniest of human interactions and the greatest sweeps of humanity. He’ll be a game changer for Stella, you wait and see.”

Dove’s latest collection, Mingling at Dawn (Burning Eye, 2014) is available from the Canterbury Gazette bookshop for £8.99.

See more at https://www.facebook.com/creativestructure?fref=ts 

BIP Leader “Unconcerned” About Mystery Election Rival

Formio dismisses “irrelevant publicity stunt” by “hessian brigade” Greens

by Esmé Dupp

Speculation was mounting today over the identity of the Green Party’s candidate for the South Thanet constituency at this May’s General Election. As the Greens promised an announcement “very soon,” the British Independence Party’s Nicholas Formio, who holds a 12-point lead over Labour in the race for the East Kent seat, sipped his pint of Bishops Finger, sparked up a B&H and declared himself “completely relaxed and utterly unconcerned.”

Follow Nicholas Formio’s bid for a seat in Parliament, explore the key issues and take part in voting here: http://bit.ly/StellaEurope

The Green Party leadership announced the withdrawal of previous South Thanet candidate Olivier Davies on Monday but has since remained tight-lipped on his replacement. Reports from unnammed sources within the party describing Davies as a “lightweight” who “struggled to make an impact” fuelled rumours that the new candidate would be a big name.

Angelina Jolie, Alan Titchmarsh, 
Stella Herbert, Vladimir Putin, Kevin Pietersen and Tracey Emin are just some of the many prominent public figures linked with the prestigious vacancy.

South Thanet offers much more than a seat in the Commons. The result on 7 May will be the making or the breaking of Nicholas Formio. If he goes down, the entire British Independence Party may go with him. After a resounding victory in the 2014 European elections, however, Formio is riding the crest of a wave that may sweep him all the way to polling day and beyond.

Formio spoke to a group of journalists in the garden of the Bird In Hand, Cliffsend, then a bit later at the Red Lion, Minster, then a bit further down the road at some other pub and then finally back to Cliffsend for a curry at the Baypoint Balti House.

“The Green Party’s open-door policy on immigration spells disaster for the people of South Thanet and the whole of the United Kingdom,” Formio explained as he swigged his Spitfire Ale. “Why should young British families have to compete with 400 million other people who come from faraway places that happen to be members of the EU?”

“The Green’s Thanet candidate can be Desmond Tutu or Mr. Blobby, for all I care. Their policies are completely barmy. Pint of Whitstable Bay, please. Vote for the Greens, and we’ll all be eating mung bean casserole and riding yoghurt-powered bicycles to compulsory tree-hugging sessions. Who’s got any fags left?”

Meanwhile, the Green Party scheduled a press conference for 10am on Monday 13 April. It is widely expected that the new South Thanet candidate will be revealed then. Latest polls for the constituency have the Greens in fourth place with 3.1% of the vote.

Explore the key issues on April 21st – 25th and take part in voting here: http://bit.ly/StellaEurope

Seminar tells one major truth – ‘the only way to learn anything about writing [is] to have a decent editor go through it word by word with you.   Help you see what it is, what you mean.   What you didn’t even know you meant.’    The play reaches this point on the last page.

In Terry Johnson’s production at the Hampstead Theatre, London, the set – modular seating arranged symmetrically either side of a large rectangular chimney breast – emphasised the distinct segments of the first half of the play.   In the first five scenes we see three in which Leonard, rock-star editor and fiction tutor, abuses one of four creative writing students.    Each time, the students offer muted responses to his fierce criticism and all four are left in angry silence.  Each scene feels like a blow of the same heavy hammer on the nuts of writing that are offered up for Leonard to crack.   Izzy’s writing is approved because she is clearly available to him. The other students’ work is destroyed by energetic, flamboyant, arrogant, abusive, sexually poisonous, loud contempt.   In the other two scenes, the students move towards and back from each other but there is little interplay apart from some sexual jostling and behind-the-back critical remarks.   By the interval the play felt laboured and shallow.

In the second half, the pace changes.  The work of Martin comes as a revelation to Leonard, who roars his approval.   The sex becomes hotter and Izzy turns her vigorous attentions from Martin to Leonard, causing Martin to reject Leonard’s approval of his work.    Douglas, the pretentious butt of much of the earlier criticism, fades from the play.   Martin’s fights with Izzy, who has betrayed him, Kate, whom he probably loves, and Leonard, whom he hated but who loves his work, propel the final scenes to a satisfactory finale in which Martin and Leonard find the first glimmers of an understanding.

Roger Allam, as Leonard, delivered the slabby, abusive speeches with gusto and revealed more facets of character as soon as the text allowed, late in the play.    The actors playing the students did well when the text released them, particularly Charity Wakefield as Kate.

Theresa Rebeck‘s Seminar is a sardonic comedy, playing to broad-brush popular conceptions about fiction, publishing and the teaching of creative writing.   It’s a moderate play and this production did it justice.   The text arrived at its goal  late and just scored in stoppage time.

Established authors in the United States and the UK write to Amazon, complaining about their commercial practices in a dispute with Hachette.   Authors in Germany write in similar terms about Amazon’s negotiation with Bonniers. In the other direction, an open letter from a number of American authors urges support for Amazon.   In France, the same row transmutes into a law protecting independent booksellers.     It’s all about patronage.

The authors’ complaint

The most telling complaint of the authors about Amazon is that the global bookseller is ‘refusing to discount the prices of many of Hachette’s books’.   Here are independent creative artists complaining that a retailer is refusing to sell their books at knock-down prices.   What do these authors believe is the ‘right’ price for their books, then?   And why do they not write to their publishers complaining that list prices are too high?

The German language authors write in similar terms, but their main complaint is not the discounting issue, since this does not apply in Germany, but Amazon’s alleged manipulation of the recommendation lists.   Who do these authors believe should be recommended then?   Their own books, obviously, and they are upset if they do not see their own works in the recommended lists.

The French booksellers’ complaint

In France, the anxiety is about the disappearance of independent bookshops, and more particularly the ancient battle against large American corporate activity and its perceived influence on French culture.   Bookshops are disappearing all over the world, in the same way that small grocers, bakers, fishmongers and butchers do, because of changes in family life, distribution chains, habits of buying and price.   Who will preserve the booksellers, if not themselves?

The ebook pricing complaint

One of the headline rows is about ebook pricing.   Amazon wants to cap ebook prices at $9.99, the publishers want to be the arbiter of price and list ebooks at prices that they choose.   There is endless discussion about the ‘right’ price for ebooks and much nonsense talked about the costs associated with ebooks in relation to the costs of printed books.   An article in The Guardian even quoted random unit manufacturing costs for a hardback and a paperback.   Who knows what the ‘right’ price for an ebook and a printed book is?   Only the market.

The established authors want to be protected from competition, and to be specially promoted.   The French bookshops, as elsewhere, want to be protected from the changing behaviour of their customers, who know they can get any book through an online retailer, but not in a small bookshop.   The ebook publishers want to be protected from the possibility that their guess at the ‘right’ price might be wrong.

Both sides are right

The two positions that understand the matter best are that of Michael Pietsch, CEO of Hachette, when he says that ‘This dispute started because Amazon is seeking a lot more profit and even more market share, at the expense of authors, bricks and mortar bookstores, and ourselves’ and Sue-Ellen Welfonder who wrote, in defence of Amazon, ‘In traditional publishing, a few will always thrive, but a large number of writers, those on the dread midlist, have to learn how to paddle hard to stay afloat. Indie publishing (and Amazon) offers new writers never-before opportunities and gives midlisters a wonderful chance to re-invent themselves, making it possible to have the kind of control and power over our work that was unthinkable just a short while ago.’   They are both right, but Pietsch should not expect anything else when dealing with a retailer, any retailer.   Welfonder clearly understands the market and works hard to make herself heard.

Protection is patronage

Protection is patronage, whether it be state subsidy, corporate donation or fixed price retailing.   Writers, as any other artists, offer their work to the audience, the readers, the viewers, the market. If there are enough people prepared to pay them for their labour, they will make a living.   If not, they will do something else, or seek a patron.   In England, we have the Arts Council, which has budgeted £1 billion of UK taxpayers’ money for the arts over 2015-2018.   This is marvellous, but it’s not a right, it’s patronage.   It’s a bonus, not a pension.   Amazon has created a position for itself in retailing through top-quality service and fierce price-cutting. People who sell to Amazon have a choice – deal or no deal.   But Amazon is not a patron of the creative arts and authors should not expect the company to be nice to their publishers.

Euripides’ Medea, written 2,500 years ago, is a divorce drama with integral magic and witchcraft – as played in the current production at the National Theatre, London.

The pre-play platform discussion on August 12th described the difficulty and the intense intellectual and rehearsal effort that went into creating a living balance between the psychologically realistic and the other-worldly.   ‘How do you fit witches into our more rational world?’ asked Carrie Cracknell, the director.

The response of Tom Scutt, the designer, was to draw on influences from 1970s horror films to provide visceral menace within an apparently recognisable domestic setting.   His set did indeed offer a forested ‘stomach’, backstage centre, beneath a civilised brain, a smart dining room, all fronted by a broad, dated living room of anxious normality.   We saw throughout, simultaneously, aspects of head and heart.    The movement between them, particularly of Medea herself, and the hovering at the margins, was meaningfully directed.

The choreography of the Chorus was telling.   The women of Colchis moved, spoke and sang as a fluid group, their restrained deportment punctured by dance of agonising psychotic twitches, flailing and writhing, all perfectly controlled.    Bosch came to mind.   As much as anything, this made us feel the impossibility of repressing the misery and anguish in the human condition of the play.

Medea is an outcast, a foreigner, a refugee, an abused wife, a mother.    Helen McCrory makes her energy burst like solar flares, then suppresses it fiercely until her uncontrollable misery cracks open her public surface.    Euripides’ text, the contemporary version by Ben Power, requires Medea to shift from despair to fury to devotion to machination with scarcely a beat between.    Helen McCrory changes gear with the precision of a racing driver in full control.    Her voice ranges from a low growl to a wheedle, motherly warmth to icy ferocity.

The surrounding characters were sound, and pushed the narrative on efficiently, prompting Medea onwards to the terror of her revenge on her husband, her decision to kill their sons.   We were told of this awful journey, we were shown some of it, just beneath the surface of Medea’s skin, but in the end we were not terrified and awed by the monstrosity of the act, nor wept for pity at the final image of Medea, grunting beneath the eternal load of her dead sons, making her way into the creepy forest.

Showing both the realism of the human psychology and the ‘other’ worlds of magic, oaths and gods is hindered in this production by too much visual ‘telling’.    The design constrains the imagination by being too explicit.   The style of the playing (except the dance) is tilted to the domestic and familiar.   Artistic expression that makes a true connection with audience, reader, viewer allows the responder to contribute and complete the creation imaginatively and thereby own the emotional impact of the result.   It is very rare.

By being explicit and choosing action through domestic realism we lose the worst of the horrifying power of the human.    Fundamentally, the human and the other are not two.    The human contains, indeed creates, the other.   Women and men make gods, not the other way around.    The ‘magic’ in this play, references to Medea’s descent from the sun-gods, to her potency in medicines, even the murder of Kruesa by means of a poisonous cloak, is really a metaphor for the human power that controls and terrifies.     Such power is so appalling that people have to push it away, pass it on in story, invent gods onto whom such power is projected, in order to absolve themselves of the responsibility for their own actions.    In her final act, Medea is solely in charge.   She decides to kill her sons to cause Jason utter pain and as an expression of her own desolation beyond any hope of being re-born.   She controls and terrifies.   In Medea the human and the other are one.

More than £1 billion of taxpayers’ money was allocated to the creative arts in England earlier this month.    That’s £340 million a year, for the three years 2015-2018, directly from our pockets.    £270 million a year comes from our taxes; £70 million a year from our bets on the Lottery.    Taxes for the arts – should this money be the first resort, the primary funding for people and organisations who wish to express themselves through performance of some kind?

The sum of money is patronage on a colossal scale. Not the patronage of emperors and popes, erecting monuments to themselves, not the patronage of aristocratic donors keeping poets, dramatists and painters for their own entertainment or to show off, not the patronage of businesses that wish to burnish their image; it’s the patronage of the people of England – more than £1 billion, funding 670 organisations of all shapes and sizes across the arts.

Inpress has benefited

Disclosure: I am Chairman of one of those organisations – Inpress Books Ltd, a national sales and distribution business, based in Newcastle, that supports 45 literary publishers who bring new and established writers, particularly poets, to commercial markets and direct to consumers.   I am new to the world of Arts Council funding.   After we have absorbed the fact that the Arts Council of England has awarded us (subject to final approval of business plans) funding, I ask myself and our board members, ‘what privileges, what responsibilities, does this money bring with it?’

The privilege of the taxpayer’s money

It is clearly a privilege to receive taxpayers’ money.   It is not a right in the way that British society has decided that healthcare free at the point of delivery is a universal right.   It is not a benefit, in the way that society has agreed that vulnerable citizens are granted benefits because their circumstances are difficult.    It is not an incentive, in the way that society has decided that tax breaks for investment in innovative companies are likely to deliver long-term benefits to the country.   It is a privilege that  taxpayers have entrusted us with some of their money, through the agency of Arts Council England, so that we can support poets, fiction writers, other authors and their publishers in their ambitions to express and reflect the people we are and the world in which we live.

The responsibilities that follow

We obviously have to use and account for the money carefully and accurately.    We have to try to ensure the work we do is good – whatever that may mean, as long as we define it, measure it, are consistent about it and always try to make it better.   We have to respond to the goals that the Arts Council sets out.    The exchange is not a hand-out, it’s a deal – we, the Arts Council, give you, Inpress, the taxpayers’ money; you agree to use that money actively to achieve what the Arts Council sets out to do.   In particular, says the Arts Council, we want you to pursue excellence in artistic output and to enable as many people as possible to experience it.

How to measure up

There are pitfalls here – such goals can be described in innumerable ways, ways which might be virtually impossible to measure.    But  that’s also a very English advantage that allows some discretion at all layers within the Arts Council administrative system as to whether a particular use of the taxpayers’ money has been worth while.    For organisations who have lost their funding, or had it reduced, the frustration that they cannot carry on in the same way as before, or that the beneficiaries of their services will find their lives diminished, means that the immediate discomfort and sadness is acute.

Funding as a bonus?

My sense is that Arts Council funding should be regarded as a bonus.   Any organisation that offers work to the public lives and dies by whether the public will pay for it – whether people buy the books, a theatre gets bums on seats, exhibitions attract visitors and so on.   If the public won’t pay for it, or pay for all of it, and if the people who make the work want to receive some sort of fee, wage, or living from it, then they have to find a patron.    It is a fine thing that in the United Kingdom our politics encourages artistic expression to the extent of £1 billion of taxpayers’ money over three years – but should this money be the first resort of the artist, or the last?

The taxpayer decides

If the work is good enough, and the artist or ensemble is savvy enough about selling it and capable enough to create a sustainable business out of it, then enough people will buy it.   If we at Inpress work hard enough at it, then should not the Arts Council funding be the extra money that goes to create further opportunity for our poets and other writers to reach a wider public?   We are not entitled to ask the taxpayer to give us money simply to exist and do whatever we like.  We may, I think, ask the taxpayer to fund us to go further, raise our game, reach more people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to choose to respond to what we offer.   And the taxpayer will look at what we do and say yes or no.