P defends V. ...

[alice wellintown]

>
> Right. On the other hand, the literary crimes he's confessing to in this
> little essay apply quite well to "V.", I gave examples, they're pretty dire.
> I think it's foolish to pretend that Pynchon isn't also referring to faults
> in the early novel in his intro to Slow Learner.

You've applied them not the author. That's the point. You argued that
the author applied them directly to the novel V.. That, as I said, is
not an honest or faithful reading of the Introduction.
That you coud locate such offenses and argue, as you are now, that the
author's critique of V.  is, if not explicit, implicit, is just
rediculous at this point. And to call all of us who can't see the
obvious and implicit critique of the novel V. by the author foolish is
even more rediculous. You've changed what was a very specific argument
about what the author explicitly stated about the novel the rest of
have decided to read and are reading (V.), to a generalization none of
us are foolish enough to argue against. That is, that the novel V.
suffers from the weaknesses of a very talented but green author. I
frankly don't trust your assessment of what counts for good dialogue.
Moreover, good dialogue is not, as I've said before, why any reader
should read or study Pynchon. He doesn't write great dialogue, ever,
but it doesn't destroy his romances because the voiced dialogue of
realism is not important to romance.

As far as class goes, I've no idea what your talking about. As far as
knowledge of literature, you can't even get into one of mine. You need
quite a few pre-recs before you can even apply.