The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
   
Hoaxes Throughout History
Middle AgesEarly Modern1700s1800-1840s1850-1890s
1900s1910s1920s1930s1940s1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s21st Century2014
Second Thoughts About Rance
Yesterday I suggested that the anonymous blogger 'Rance' might really be a cartoonist/screenwriter named Keith Thomson because Thomson's name kept popping up when I tracked down who was initially hyping Rance in internet discussion groups. But people have pointed out that movie studios and talent agencies often create phony identities that they use to hype projects they're working on. Maybe the phony identities they used to hype Rance just happened to have been used earlier to hype Thomson's work. Could be. And whoever runs Defamer seems to feel confident that Rance really is a celebrity.

So I'm willing to consider that Rance is a celebrity. If this is the case, then it would be a celebrity who's a client of International Creative Management, and who probably is also a client of Nick Reed, the same agent who represents Keith Thomson. I searched for celebrities who fit this profile and the person I came up with is Kevin Pollak. He's a comedian; and he's represented by Nick Reed. Plus, what he writes on his online diary sounds a bit like Rance.
Admittedly Pollak is a shot in the dark. But I'm pretty sure that someone at ICM (most likely Nick Reed) helped hype Rance, so ICM somehow holds the solution to the mystery of who he is.
Identity/ImpostersTechnology
Posted by The Curator on Wed Jun 02, 2004


If it's Pollak, then he's spending way more time as Rance than as Pollak (one entry for 2003 and one for 2004 on his online diary versus one every three days or so as Rance). The point is, for Rance to be any kind of successful working actor, he'd be too busy to spend as much time as he does writing Rance entries and vetting comments (although an assitant could do the latter). More likely this is someone who writes already, perhaps a screenwriter, or even a producer (he mentions reading scripts). There has been nothing yet to indicate that he is anything beyond a verbose person with time to kill who may or may not have Hollywood affiliations. Hell, it might as well be the editor of Defamer - that would be a goodrunning joke and explain why Rance gets mentioned there more than anywhere else these days. Come to think of it, I might be Rance, writing under an assumed pseudonymous pseudonym.
Posted by Zesty Pete  on  Thu Jun 03, 2004  at  10:58 AM
The bigger question here might be ... who is writing Defamer?
Posted by Layne  on  Thu Jun 03, 2004  at  12:57 PM
In all of this discussion, I find myself coming back to one, simple thought. Whoever it is, all of this 'supposing' and pondering, is indeed the kind of advertising money cannot buy. I'm pretty sure, whomever it may be, is getting exactly what they were after.

Gaia*
Posted by Gaia09  on  Fri Jun 04, 2004  at  08:02 PM
But all I can find on Defamer is that Rance is indeed a fake. http://www.defamer.com/topic/another-rance-theory-hes-a-fake-015506.php

Any others links that I may not be aware of?
Posted by no one  on  Mon Jun 07, 2004  at  11:00 AM
Why is it that everyone always seems to want to know who Rance is? Why can't people just leave him/her alone and let them do what him/her have been doing. It's not as if he/she has been hurting anyone. Enough with the whole guessing game and the never ending list of who he/she maybe.
Posted by Just Wondering  on  Mon Jun 07, 2004  at  05:56 PM
if he is indeed a fake then of course it matters. no one likes being lied to and fakers deserve a good beating. the writings on that blog are interesting and worth reading but when you know its all lies then why would you want to read it? unless he admits its all fiction then the readers will keep that in mind
Posted by to just wondering  on  Tue Jun 08, 2004  at  02:43 AM
Well i understand that Rance could be fake and that if this turns out to be true then yes he/she does need a beating....think of all the people that could or would be hurt because of someones sick ass joke....not funny in my book....but hey take a look at this post that someone else found and posted.....could this be rance again trying to mess with more people heads or is it someone trying to be like rance?.....what you view?

http://www.eyesarewatching.blogspot.com/
Posted by Just Wondering  on  Thu Jun 10, 2004  at  03:38 PM
It's not Pollak. Look at the syntax. I think Rance is a writer, personally (possibly a writer who also acts enough to be a star). But Rance does not have trouble mixing up "whose" and "who's", to take only one of the illiteracies in the first few lines of Pollak's diary. Someone who can spell and punctuate might decide *not* to do so for something they wanted to have anonymous. Much less likely that someone who can't figures out how for the pseudnonymous entries.

wg
Posted by Wendy M. Grossman  on  Fri Jul 16, 2004  at  11:45 AM
Rance is more than likely none other than, Mark Rance as seen here with Kevin Smith... just a thought.
Posted by Laika  on  Wed Aug 11, 2004  at  12:34 PM
Well, the name is right. And he would have some Hollywood connections. So I guess it's a possibility.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Wed Aug 11, 2004  at  08:22 PM
As revealed on the January 7th, 2005 entry, Gus Openshaw is Keith Thompson.

Gus Openshaw's Whale Killing blog was widely hyped on the Rance blog, and it was just revealed indirectly (but intently) that the writer of Gus Openshaw's blog is Keith Thompson.

Whether or not that means Rance is/was also Keith Thompson remains to be seen. It could in fact be Nick Reed or Kevin Pollack, but the tired game just got slightly more interesting.
Posted by Matt  in  Chan, MN  on  Tue Jan 11, 2005  at  01:26 PM
and by Keith Thompson, I of course mean Keith Thomson.

It's hard to leave that P out.
Posted by Matt  in  Chan  on  Tue Jan 11, 2005  at  01:27 PM
Now that the book is out, it seems that all of us who were commenting and blathering on about the adventures of Gus were acting as a sounding board or focus group. And in reading the book (Pirates of Pensacola) it turns out to be an amusing, light read - not deathless literature, but good for a laugh. Someone who has no idea what blogs are will chuckle at the conceit of modern-day pirate skulduggery; someone who read the whale-killing blog from the beginning will get an extra chuckle from the in-jokes.
Posted by ginny  in  Burbclavia  on  Tue Apr 12, 2005  at  07:09 PM
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.