Reclusion as marketing ploy - tired trope

[Albert Rolls]

P's unwillingness to have his biography out there predates his novels, though of course it didn't become apparent until afterward, and while it is hard to believe that he hasn't realized that his unwillingness to be interviewed and allow his life story to become part of the marketing machine has itself worked to draw attention to him, it is also hard to believe that he set out sometime around 1960, or maybe before, to fabricate a method of calling attention to himself based an an unwillingness to cooperate with the press.


-----Original Message-----
>From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>Sent: Oct 5, 2011 9:43 PM
>To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: Reclusion as marketing ploy - tired trope
>
> There are celeb or pop authors: Dan Brown, Steven King, Tom Clancy,
>JK Rowling. But Pynchon is not a celeb or pop author. I agree that he
>draws attention, and I say it is his intention to do so. It's a
>marketing ploy that has paid off.
>
>On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:18 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>> There is zero clamor for writers in the media devoted to celebrity.  The
>> occasional writer might rise to the surface, like Franzen, but the idea of
>> writer as media celeb is absurd.  Pynchon only draws attention to himself by
>> his insistence on anonymity.  That might not be his intention, but that's
>> the result.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew Cissell <macissell at yahoo.es>
>> To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Wed, Oct 5, 2011 1:21 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
>>