Reclusion as marketing ploy - tired trope

[Mark Kohut]

Yeah, since his first books......
 
I reject the full cynicism of such 'thinking'...puts all right into the savage satire--as character of The Recognitons or GR....
 
And what does one make of the man's theme of privacy in all his work? A tactic? Coudda been antoerh theme...
Come off it....

From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 9:43 PM
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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20111005/b2600a77/attachment.html>