NOT P but DFW on Updike

[Mike Jing]

I see. I guess I was just unaware. Thanks, David.


On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 9:50 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

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        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”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