NOT P but DFW on Updike

[Mike Jing]

Thanks for the reply, David.

So "Rush" is indeed Rush Limbaugh? Does this mean the person speaking is a
fan of his?

I also thought of the band Rush, but it doesn't seem to make much sense,
although the band has been attacked for its "fascist tendencies".



On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 11:09 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> My first thought is that DFW as a very strongly opinionated persona like
> the phallocrats (Nice word!) of The generation of authors. So his
> indignation might be an affect. But I think invoking Rush is a low blow.
>
> MJ: “there’s not going to be any profit in appealing to the intentional
> fallacy”
> Me: That appeal to IF might be like saying “I was only kidding,“ after the
> comic insults someone: A phony apology.
>
> I personally very much enjoy Updike and  Roth. Mailer has a tendency to be
> overwrought IMO.
>
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 10:49 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The following excerpt is from David Foster Wallace's review of John
>> Updike’s *Toward the End of Time*:
>>
>>        “Just a penis with a thesaurus.”
>>        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”
>>        “Makes misogyny seem literary the same way Rush makes fascism seem
>> funny.”
>>        And trust me: these are actual quotations, and I’ve heard even
>> worse
>> ones, and they’re all usually accompanied by the sort of facial expression
>> where you can tell there’s not going to be any profit in appealing to the
>> intentional fallacy or talking about the sheer aesthetic pleasure of
>> Updike’s prose. None of the other famous phallocrats of Updike’s
>> generation
>> — not Mailer, not Exley or Roth or even Bukowski — excites such violent
>> dislike.
>>
>> Does the "Rush" here refer to Rush Limbaugh?
>>
>> Also, what does "appealing to the intentional fallacy" mean here? Where is
>> this "intentional fallacy" exactly?
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>