NOT P but DFW on Updike

[David Morris]

“Rush” graduated to single name celebrity status years ago.

On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:13 PM Mike Jing <gravitys.rainbow.cn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”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
>>>>>
>>>>