NOT P but DFW on Updike

[Mark Kohut]

He is in this piece, imo.....I think it was bad.....I wrote an, of course,
unpublished "refutation" that is,
argument for why DFW was wrong....LOL....

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 5:48 PM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whoever the speaker is, he sounds like a prig.  Lust seems to make his
> guilty conscience lash out with projection.
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 5:33 PM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”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
>> >
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>