|Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:20 am: |
|Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 12:20 pm: |
843 750 here
|Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 01:45 am: |
Between the Hammerklavier Sonata and his dabbling with Diabelli, Ludwig van Beethoven composed an anonymous piece, a work of chamber qualities, yet with symphonic depth and inscrutable effects. The only anonymous piece in his mighty canon. Consecration of the House was its eventual name, and only the overture remains, now denemonised as Beethoven’s. A long story could be told about its genesis, far too long for modern day attention spans. Few have heard the music that followed the overture. And those few became deaf as a result, because they knew their ears had had their fill of glory. Conscecrated by greatness. I wait my turn in the queue: preparing myself for glorious silence. Already, orchestras of people are even now waiting to be conducted from silence –- via strange dustclouds of in-betweeness -- into an eventual rich darkness masquerading as emptiness.
The House was haunted, it is said (by those who have heard the music before they leave us for their own soul’s consecration). A creature or man, whatever it was, disturbed the dust that Beethoven once saw settled in every room and this ‘man’ actually created the dust through its own passage from unviability to a tenability that made flesh speckle out in motes and microbes – silting up every interstice of reality. It had human-like qualities, and the dust it settled upon the floor upon staves of imputed sound. Only Beethoven could transcribe the specks into glory. Only Beethoven could consecrate the house, that mansion we jungfraus and hallow fellows all share as one.
|Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:38 am: |
Most interesting. I've just begun reading "Beethoven's Hair" but I rather doubt that it will mention this.
In your entry, starting with "Consecrated by greatness"--I see a speculative poem rising.
BTW, I shall continue to support Nemo for providing the readership with a multifacted share of speculative greatness in the short form. Which has nothing to do with Beethoven, in particular.
|Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 06:04 pm: |
Before you get in that queue let me tell you that most of the hearing act like assholes to the deaf. I was a relay operator for a year and noticed how the hearing are so stupid. They ask a question, ignore the answer, ask it again. The deaf keep needing to answer, "Like I Said..." and the hearing never get it. The hearing answer the phone and say they don't know any deaf people, and before they hang up, the deaf person has to play 20 questions before the hearing dumbass suddenly realizes, "OhmiGod! It's my Mom on the phone! I forgot she'd lost her hearing!"
|Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 12:53 am: |
Thanks, Marge, for your nemo support from day one.
Thanks, Gorden. And there was a silent story in Nemo~2.
|Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 09:22 am: |
Latest happenings & comments on Nemonymous:
On 9 December 2004, Keith Brooke (aka Nick Gifford) gave a lecture at Essex University for the Department of Literature, Film, and Theatre Studies' weekly talk series. His title was "Names, Pseudonyms and Nemonyms" (about labelling in fiction), and included ideas created by Nemonymous and a reading from it.
A Nemo#4 author (soon to be denemonised) says: What has attracted me the most to Nemonymous is that through its anonyminity (a primary facet of the unknown, of the weird) it's becoming, I think, a focal point for modern fantasy, a gathering, if you will, for a new school of weird.
Rick Kleffel's article HERE says: This is a brilliant and exciting idea, and who else would come up with it but L****, who has been pushing the boundaries of fiction for more than 20 years.
This site says: So very rarely does something truly innovative survive marriage to altruism in the harsh day to day reality of the business of
literature. Check out D** L****' Nemonymous, be part of something great.