|Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 12:57 am: |
A review of Nemonymous Part Two has just appeared on site below!! (Nemo~2 was published May 2002!)
"This is a magazine that does not keep pace with its companions because it hears a different drummer."
|Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 05:24 am: |
AM Burrage wrote some great ghost stories (The Sweeper always haunts me - and Smee).
I think Ash Tree Press collected some of them.
I've just realised his 'nom de guerre' (under which some of his stories were originally published) - Ex-Private X - is more nemonymous than pseudonymous.
Whilst searching found this fascinating site:
|Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 05:40 am: |
Why, oh why, do we writers expect preferential treatment in the world's name culture, compared to many other types of artist?
Why is it with paintings, music, architecture, plays, and many other art forms, the artist's name is less prominent, sometimes secondary, often hard to find -- allowing impressions before finding out who impressed you?
With stories the name's up front under the title, on contents page and often at the top of every second page!!
Sorry, if I've said this before but about fiction writing:
I've found from experience, that a by-lineless story evokes a lot of interest and discussion (more than normal) - and when the author's name is finally revealed ceremonially, there is an even stronger name-identification than if it had been attached to the story in the first place!
|Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 05:39 am: |
The Two Ways of Anonymity:-
(one) The most common way - to say something you don't want to be known as saying (usually for perceived negative reasons), i.e. for *devious* purposes (which could be spite, nepotism, insult, cruelty, dubious joke, rumourmongering etc etc.) -- or publishing pornography, or hiding one's identity to avoid reputation depletion etc. These factors generally tend to bring anonymity into disrepute but there are a few aspects that are more positive such as the valentine's card and, for example, in political resistance movements, oppression, war etc., anonymity may be crucial to save one's own well-being.
(two) The Nemonymous way,
(i) whereby the fiction author wants some objective view of his work to be made without his name getting in the way -- and I, as an editor, equally don't want it to get in the way when I consider his submission for publication and
(ii) as an experiment in fiction anthology presentation as a new gestalt reading experience (i.e. stories written independently and remaining separate yet somehow more 'together') and
(iii) leading to a brainstorming approach to reviews and critical appreciation and
(iv) bringing fiction nearer to the artist-naming (late-labelling) approach of other arts such as fine arts, architecture, music etc. (instead of having the name on the spine, on the title page and, often, on the top of each alternate page throughout the book) and
(v) trying to bring fiction more easily to an interstitial or between/cross-genre optimum, thus bringing more readers for each of the separate genres themselves.
(a) Just calling oneself 'anonymous', along with many others doing this. Pure anonymity, unless the material that an 'anonymous' writes gives a clue as to his or her true identity. Hard to nail down.
(b) Calling oneself by a pseudonym that gives no clue to the identity but one which may take on a life of its own (almost like a real name), and so, for all intents and purpose, can eventually cease to be classically anonymous.
(c) Using a pseudonym that lifts the veil just slightly (eg: through the pseudonym itself and/or the material written by the psedonym): giving a pique of an identity which can (if one is not too careful) eventually reveal full identity. This is not true anonymity, I feel.