Reclusion as marketing ploy - tired trope

[Mark Kohut]

Philip Roth's odds surged to low single digits a few years ago and that bet-on-the-rumour was wrong.
We all know how a company offsets the betting, right?.....with enough bets, as Ladbroke's gets, they can't lose
even if a million to one shot----if there is one----wins.
 
I suggest the Dylan odds are surging simply because lots more people know music than authors, so many are gambling
on Bobby out of awarenesss.....for fun and a chance...
 
I read that that Le Clezio surge came from bettors gambling on a guess from a Swedish publisher very close to the award date
..no real leak was ever
found but, simply, a guess from a publishing insider who must have heard over the years that Le Clezio--and others--
were being read or thought of by Academy members. (One member did describe reading a Le Clezio novel inside a different
jacket cover before the award was announced. He told this after the Award, needless to say)
 
I still argue that as his private self TRPjr has never accepted nor given, nor sent, words of acceptance for any award. As he
wrote once, "I don't know how to say this except to say, i do not want this Award"--or close.
 
I would also ask all of us on the Pynchon list to reflect on whether we see any significance in TRP's willed 'appearances' 
being as something other than his 'real' self....I think I do,
but I've been wrong before.
 
 

From: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es>
To: "pynchon-l at waste.org" <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 5:20 PM
Subject: Reclusion as marketing ploy - tired trope

I see that the tired trope has been trotted out again. "It's all about the money/marketing." Lazy thinking. And of course before (when he was the Great writer of GR) his privacy was genuine, but now it is the work of his succubus. I see.
 
    The writer as recluse is BS, at least in the case of TP. How about writer in seclusion? A monkish sort of writer keeping to himself and wanting to keep himself to himself (the man doesn't want to be "sliced up like bologna", just write and whanot). Don't just focus on The Simpson's appearance or his letter for McEwan. What about the Watts piece? Isn't it more interesting to see his "public interaction" as an evolving dynamic and one that is not primarily motivated by marketing aspirations and a machiavellian spouse?
 
    As for Ladbrokes bets and all the rest, I think it bears some study. several times the odds they gave were off (in 2007 Doris Lessing was hardly given odds & in 2010 Llosa was at 45/1)) and other times they were close (2009 gave Müller 3/1 & 2006 gave Pamuk 5/1). At least once there was a potential leak: 2008 saw a sudden surge in betting on Le Clezio pushing his odds from 15/1 to 2/1, which aroused suspicion. Makes one wonder about the sudden change in numbers on Bobby D. However, that all has to do with the betting game. maybe there should be some side bets on whether TP would accept the prize or not.
    For me it is interesting to see the world of high status and legitimate culture (the nobel prize decision) intersecting with the vulgar world of betting. The result is a bit ironic in that there is certainly more money moving around big games (World Cup, etc.) than there is around the Nobel decision. The world is inverted.
    
ciao
mcc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20111005/ee4329ad/attachment.html>