Red herring in the SL-intro?

[Kai Frederik Lorentzen]

Close to the end of the "Slow Learner"-intro Thomas Pynchon writes:

"The next story I wrote was 'The Crying of Lot 49', which was marketed 
as a 'novel', and in which I seem to have forgotten most of what I 
thought I'd learned up till then."

Don't wanna appear pedantic, but me personally I cannot remember having 
read a 'story' as long as "The Crying of Lot 49". I do, however, 
understand Pynchon's point since there is that (slightly silly) 
argument, that a novel must have at least 200 pages. But even this point 
taken, CoL 49 is not a 'story' yet a novella which Goethe defined as the 
picturing of an extraordinary event ("Darstellung einer unerhörten 
Begebenheit"). But enough of that nit-picking criticism. What interests 
me more, is the second part of Pynchon's sentence which appears very 
strange to me. Does he really want to sell us that he prefers his early 
stories or the rather unbalanced "V" to "The Crying of Lot 49"? Hard to 
believe, guess Tom must be kidding. But why? Especially the prose-style 
of CoL 49 is as sophisticated as beautiful. Though I have a personal 
weakness for "Vineland", my judgment in 'objective terms' (if this makes 
sense) would be, that Pynchon topped the elaborated beauty of CoL 49 
only in "Gravity's Rainbow". So let me repeat my question: Why is TRP 
dissing one of his most precious works of art? Me thought about this for 
a while, and the only possible reason I came up with is the fact that he 
had to write "The Crying of Lot 49" for money in order to get the 
necessary money to paint the Rainbow. Economic pressure plus - perhaps - 
some trouble with the magazines that were publishing it piece by piece 
way back when in the mid 1960s. But by the time "Slow Learner" got 
published, this was more than 15 years ago. Plus: A remark like this is 
not exactly a rational-choice-behavior when you want to making a living 
out of your books ... So I really don't get it. Has anybody an idea why 
Pynchon is either treating CoL 49 like an unloved stepchild or trying to 
put us on? But maybe there is some tongue-in-cheek subtility that 
escapes my understanding. Anyone?

Kai Frederik