NOT P but DFW on Updike

[Mark Kohut]

I believe this means that the speaker---DFW in the piece---cannot appeal to
Updike's (good, laudable) intentions
in defending him [to these others who are so....unforgiving]


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        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”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