More on the blurb brouhahahahahahahahahha

[jd]

yeah, the fact that it would have to include Pynchon would be the real
killer for that theory.  Even if a publishing company would ever go to
these extremes as delicate as some kind of international spy mission,
weaving a dense web of deciet and lies, there is no way that Pynchon
could, I imagine, be interested at all in anything beyond the blurb
itself, reception be damned.

On 7/25/06, Carvill John <johncarvill at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Marketing 101. Product branding.
>
> >the staged controversy of the "now you see it, now you don't" blurb
>
> Ohmigod! He's *still* at it. First it was a hoax blurb ('obviously' not
> written by Pynchon), now it's a publicity stunt.
>
> This is ridiculous. Does anyone honsetly think Pynchon was involved in
> 'staging' the blurb? I assume not. So that leaves the possibility that the
> publisher deliberately gave Amazon the go-ahead to post the blurb, then
> withdrew (and denied all knowledge), then put it back up again? That simply
> isn't credible, it's like some sort of undergraduate prank. Also I don't
> think it would be very effective. Yeah, there has been a ripple of online
> interest, mostly the same AP story getting picked up and with very few sites
> having anything new to add, with the exception of Slate. In any case the
> book isn't out until December, does anyone think this 'stunt' will generate
> enough interest to sustain the PR campaign until then? Please.
>
>
>