NOT P but DFW on Updike

[Mike Jing]

That's certainly fair. I just find it odd for a person who dislikes him to
refer to him only by his first name. I'm not sure if that's common among
his detractors.


On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:01 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don’t think Rush would like to be called someone with fascist
> tendencies, so I don’t think this person would be a fan.
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 8:59 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”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
>>>>
>>>