NOT P but DFW on Updike

[Mike Jing]

Got it. Thanks, Mark.


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        “Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?”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