Watts article

[jbor]

>> The use of "man" (for emphasis) and "baby" and "cat"
>> all occur within direct speech. You'd have him rewrite
>> his informants' words in "good" English?
> 
> What are you talking about?  He has rewritten his
> informants' words.  He has a half dozen "quotes"
> attributed to they, them, others, no one.  He writes,
> at one point, "You are likely to hear from them wisdom
> on the order of ..."  followed by words in quotes.
> Likely?  These are paraphrases at best; at worst,
> they're made up of whole cloth, supposedly
> representative.  You think it's fine, it's
> journalistically sound, that he decided, I'll just
> throw in "cat" and "man" and "baby" because that's the
> way these negroes speak?

I simply pointed out that every usage of "man" (for emphasis), "baby" and
"cats" in the article occurs within direct speech (i.e. within inverted
commas). Check it out. You've decided that Pynchon has made up these quotes,
on no other basis than that you don't think the way the speakers are
speaking is authentic, or "good", enough. The fact that inverted commas have
been used does indicate that the words have been quoted, however.

best