|
Des Lewis is the
prolifically published author of nearly 1500 short stories in venues so widely dispersed,
it's an accountant's dream even thinking of trying to name them all. He's been called,
"A national treasure." by best-selling author Graham Joyce.
In the Fall of 2001, Des's brainchild, Nemonymous, saw daylight for the
first time. Nemonymous is a concept so radical it defies logic, and yet so natural an extension
of Des's artistically motivated writing career, anyone who knew him should have seen it coming.
Authors submit stories anonymously, via e-mail, and are published without a byline.
Stories remain unattributed until the next installment of the journal, whereupon they are
given the opportunity to describe what the experience meant to them. The effect becomes
something like a pastiche, with one story following another, the progression unbroken by
unnecessary copy, the flow just barely less smooth than chapters in a novel.
Critical acclaim followed rapidly, with reviews on the anthology, and
on several of the individual stories themselves, appearing in journals ranging from internet
magazines, like SF Site, to London's Time-Out Magazine.
Now three episodes into Des's irregularly published
"Journal of Parthenogenetic Fiction," rumblings of award nominations and inclusions in
genre "Best of" collections -- a story from Nemonymous 2, "The Assistant to Dr. Jacobs," has
been tapped by the Sci-Fi Channel's fiction editor, Ellen Datlow, for The Year's Best Fantasy
and Horror, 16th edition -- lend an air of legitimacy many say should never have been in
question.
1. Q: Nemonymous is a rather radical idea, coming from a professional writer -- especially
one so widely known as you -- don't you think? These writers, your contributors, many of
them unknown as it is, are surrendering their bylines for several months in trade for what?
How do you define -- defend, even -- the Nemonymous experience?
A: I deny that I am widely known. I once had lots of stories and prose poems published
in the small press and lucky enough, as a consequence, to appear in some Best-of's and other
anthologies. I am certainly not professional. I work for my living, and write (and now edit)
as a hobby.
With regard to defending the Nemonymous experience, I quote one of its contributor authors:
"There is something very pure about the magazine. And yet, we cannot deny altogether
the interest inherent in the author's name (and, during the process of denemonisation,
in the authors' comments on their Nemonymous experience). So that in fact, in the end, we
get the best of both worlds: pure unfettered art, and, ultimately, an even stronger
identification of the author than one gets with conventional magazines."
2. Q: I've noticed a schism in opinion of Nemonymous, and it seems to follow the
line between small press/large press houses. On the one hand, you have authors like
Rhys Hughes and Jeff VanderMeer -- both of whom were included in Nemonymous -- singing
praises for Nemonymous's artistic altruism, and on the other we have major name editors
like Ellen Datlow who, while she's gone on record as having loved both issues for their
beautiful content, sees the project itself as a detrimental exercise for anyone but a
well-established author. I've even heard Nemonymous called a gimmick.
Do you think the influx of award nominations -- the six(?) Bram Stoker nominations
especially -- will help dispel that negative sentiment? Or do you really even
care how Nemonymous is perceived?
A: I was not aware of that 'schism' till I just heard your question! Very interesting.
I simply go back to the quotation from a Nemonymous contributor I used in reply to your
other question. I really think there has been more interest generated in all the authors
-- known and unknown alike -- from Nemonymous Parts One and Two as a result of the
philosophy behind Nemonymous. Judging by the writers' own comments and websites,
this is borne out in their minds, too. Perhaps this is a lucky accident, generated
by the original thinking behind the Nemonymous project which was not concerned with
such an issue in either direction, as it happened.
Many experiences relating to editing/publishing and appearing in Nemonymous
have been generated almost spontaneously in a natural progression I could never have
foreseen. It is almost as if it's a living creature with its own volition.
Pretentious? Moi?
Regarding HWA Bram Stoker awards, as I speak (February 1st 2003), there are
eight recommendations for Nemonymous Part Two as a whole, plus five for specific
stories within it. And, yes, I do care how Nemonymous is perceived. I want it to be
self-sufficient financially, which means I want people to buy it. Nemonymous needs to
feel that for itself, as a matter of self-pride.
3. Q: So do you think, as you continue to produce issues and imitators -- I
believe you've heard of Anon., which takes the idea of anonymous publishing one step
too far, in my opinion -- that Nemonymous will more fully enter the public consciousness,
perhaps even spawn a literary industry all its own? And is that something you'd care to see,
a passel of temporarily anonymous anthologies all publishing under the umbrella of
nemonymity?
A: I've not really thought about this point before, but I think I would be pleased if there
was some pursuance of the nemonymous ideal, but I doubt if anyone else would want to use the
term (nemonymity) which I invented for it (and the question is: would I want them to do so
or can I even stop them? - I'm not sure). Anyway, if you now insert the word 'nemonymous'
into an Internet search engine you'll receive many hits (all about my Nemonymous publication).
Before I started Nemonymous, there were *none* at all. Indeed, as far as I can ascertain,
Nemonymous Part One in November 2001 was the world's first ever collection of different
authors' fiction published in a print outlet. Anon' (www.anon.be) (born in recent months),
as you mention it, seems to be taking the anonymous angle to extremes, whereby authors
and writers never get to know each other's identities and you can only receive, I think,
a contributor's copy if you arrange for a supply of copies to be delivered
(and presumably paid for) by your own local bookshop. It also seems to cater more to
poetry than fiction.
As to nemonymity itself, you mentioned the word 'gimmick' in an earlier question.
I am proud of this gimmick, if this simply means -- as is the right of every business --
thinking of something different to stir people into taking an interest. But, in truth,
the gimmick was secondary, if present in my mind at all. The nemonymous concept was born
from a lifetime (I am now 55) of dwelling on similar issues as part of my interest in genre
and literary fiction (writing it and reading it). I suppose the Zeroist Group, which
I founded in 1967, as a sort of Dada art movement at University, was a seed. And I have
been interested in various literary theories in Aesthetics, such as the Intentional Fallacy.
Yet Nemonymous was finally born as a result of discussions and debates on two internet
newsgroups (Storyville and Weirdmonger), where reactions to my ideas made me determined to
put them into practice. So far the experiment has been successful.
4. Q: And there's not likely to be anything approaching Nemonymous, at least
not that certain feel -- the original seems to positively ooze a sense of menacing
singularity of purpose. Really, a journal that can include between its covers stories so
wildly dissimilar as "The Assistant to Dr. Jacobs," and "Climbing the Tallest Tree in the
World," and yet still portray a sense of fullness that would be lacking without either...that's
an accomplishment in itself. You've mentioned before that Nemonymous is more than an anthology,
more than a collection, it's a whole, and the critical analyses -- by sources ranging from
London's Time-Out Magazine to Rodger Turner's SF Site -- has borne you out.
There really is something about the entire package, from the layout to the order of
stories to the quotations capping each, that seems to fashion Nemonymous into more than a
mere gimmick. How did you manage that?
A: There are a few factors to this gestalt effect, I feel. For a start, I am
solely responsible for Nemonymous, i.e. editor, publisher, financier & distributor
(plus I choose the designer, typesetter and printer). There are no arguments at Board
meetings (!), no crushing of ideas simply for the sake of consensus.
Also, the way the stories are set out in a quality-looking vehicle, without by-lines,
gives the impression of orchestration. Here are two comments I have received from readers
that particularly bear this out and are central to your question:
"To me, Nemonymous isn't simply an anthology, it is a whole. Each story ... is part
of that whole. Some stand strongly on their own, others provide the glue that holds
the piece together and, perhaps (and this is no disrespect to their authors because I feel
that the standard of actual writing was consistently high) would not be so striking, or at
least would be naked or even odd, in a different setting. So continue to go your own way Des,
select the work you feel slots into the Nemo mosaic."
And:
"I love the idea, content and layout of the magazines....My opinion is that by
omitting the authors' names, you've managed to create an environment wherein the
individual stories link together and read like chapters in a book. The result is that
the reader (at least in my case), upon finishing an issue, feels like he's read
'Nemonymous' as opposed to 'the stories in Nemonymous.'"
Finally, I must thank Jungian Synchronicity. I have long been a worshipper of the
great god Serendip -- who is now (perhaps) repaying me!
5. Q: Let's discuss your "ideal" submitting author. Who are you looking for?
You've gotten some of the best of the small press "all-stars" -- Rhys Hughes, Jeff VanderMeer,
Gary Couzens, to name a few. These writers aren't slouches. Is that the kind of author
you're really hoping to snag, with each call for submissions? Or would you like to see some
of the bestseller set -- writers like Neil Gaiman and Peter Straub -- take a whack
at nemonymity?
A: I would like all people submitting stories to Nemonymous to submit them by anonymous
email, so that I am not even faced with this question. As it is, about half of the
submissions, so far, have been made anonymously in this way, and any of these that are
accepted (or rejected) are done so categorically, *before* finding out who their authors
are (and I rarely find them out at all if they've been rejected!). I think this was the first
time this method has ever been used. In this way, I unwarily happened to accept two stories
by the same person for Nemonymous Part Three! By the way, the generic name for Nemonymous is
going to be Megazanthus (not magazine, not anthology) in future. Forgive the tangent.
As to those who submit non-anonymously, I try to be judge the story on its own without
recourse to the author's name or non-name (from the point of view of fame or predisposition
to their work). But I am only human. I may be swayed by the name. Who knows. I hope not.
Does that answer your question?
Incidentally, I care very much for the writers (being one myself, having submitted
thousands and thousands of stories since 1987 and had over a thousand published in print
outlets of all sorts) -- that's why I offer loan copies to prospective contributors and p
ayment for stories -- plus sponsorship money to anyone (albeit meager) for using the
word 'nemonymous' in any stories published elsewhere. I'm rambling now.
6. Q: Megazanthus? There's got to be a story there. And now that you've
finally brought it up: your writing career. How did it end? You've got nearly
as many stories in print as Harlan Ellison, and then you just...quit? Was it a
rational decision, or a reaction? Really, how did you come to be sitting on the other
side of the industry -- from prolific writer to editor?
A: Well, I have sort of started writing again in recent months (after a couple of years of
fallow abstinence), but nothing like before.
The history? In 1986 I managed to get a story (Padgett Weggs) published in a Cthulhu-type
magazine (a long story how that happened), but I was filled with amazement that anyone would
want to publish me, Still am. And many would agree with me!! Anyway, whatever the case,
I was obsessed, I started writing my DFL-type stories and couldn't stop. A story a day for
several years. And I submitted them everywhere and I was published literally everywhere, too.
At the last count about 1400 different stories in print by the end of 2001. Some in weird and
wonderful organs of literature, others in professional venues and best-of's. The Internet did
me in, though, from 2000. Did me in. I lost focus. My bibliography became corrupted by the
stories I had published on the internet. I lost even more faith in myself than I had already!
Just starting to regain it now. But I only submit new stories now, when solicited to do so.
Long gone are the days when my postbox at home was crammed full of rejections, acceptances or
contributor's copies. And then Nemonymous came along, grabbed me by the hair, asked me
(told me!) to be its editor, and that brings us to today.
7. Q: Corrupted. Meaning, your Internet published stories were less than up-to-snuff
in comparison to your print publications? That's an interesting subject. Do you think
the Internet could ever truly be a viable venue for professional writers? There are
already several good E-Zines -- SCI Fiction, Fantastic Metropolis, Fiction Inferno -- which
maintain a consistent level of quality that, at the least, matches their print counterparts.
But there are even more zines that just publish whatever, with nothing like the professional
quality-control one could expect from Ellen Datlow or Mike Moorcock. Is it possible to tap the
Internet as a medium? Or should newer writers steer clear?
A: What I mean by 'corrupted' is that I lost track of my own publications
(with so much of my stuff going out on the Internet at one stage). It seemed to dilute
my whole provenance. My fault, probably. I now feel that publication of fiction on any
site (however prestigious) is not worthwhile.
I, for one, cannot enjoy fiction on the screen. The Internet is good for dissemination
and discussion (upon which Nemonymous is heavily reliant). I am no longer an expert
on the outlets for fiction on the net. Indeed, I am no longer an expert on fiction
outlets anywhere.
So yes, I have indeed tapped the Internet for dissemination of Nemonymous. But
I no longer really tap it for DF Lewis, although it is true to say that I have
recently regained a small website merely for a DFL name-check. This website used to
show a lot of my fiction, and it has now only recently returned in a slimmed-down
form after a couple of years (www.weirdmonger.com), simply because I felt it may be
useful when the projected retrospective of my work comes out in Prime
(a collection of some 67 stories called 'Weirdmonger').
8. Q: Congratulations to you on that. Prime is a good publisher. Though,
I have to wonder: How does it feel to be reentering the marketplace as a writer after
having been an editor, nearly exclusively, for the past nearly two years?
A: Thanks, Bob. But it's not really a re-entering of the marketplace, but more the
fulfillment of an ambition: a retrospective of some past stories that I have chosen
to represent my name. Not to represent me. But my name. Almost a catharsis or purging.
Allowing me to be one with Nemonymous. The Jungian Collective Unconscious. Pretentious?
Moi? Actually. It's all a fraud. There isn't printed inside any part of Nemonymous the
name of the person who edited or published it. I, DF Lewis, am merely claiming the credit
via the Internet. Nowhere else is Nemonymous connected with me. It is after me, though.
I sense it peering round every corner ... waiting to pounce --- and all I can say is:
I DID NOT DO IT.
9. Q: That's the stress talking, I'm sure... One final question, if you will: How
far are you going to take Nemonymous? Into perpetuity? Or does it follow its purpose,
and swallow its tail somewhere down the line, after it's wended its way into the public
consciousness -- subconscious, rather. Is there a line where you say,
"We've gone far enough." and pull the plug?
A: Well, being a one-man busker who depends on his knee-cymbals, I guess
I hope Nemonymous tinkles or clashes along as long as I do! I suppose the last issue
will be the ultimate in Nemonymity, its purest form: because the authors there will not have
their identities crystallized in the print of a subsequent issue. That will be the climax,
the acme of my ambition. Nemonymity by Death.
And that really has to be the last word. |
