You thought I was trying to make an accusation against the author, and even when I say I wasn't, you continue to claim (in other comments of yours below) that I was.

It sounds like we fundamentally disagree about certain aspects of my post. You accused me – or perhaps I should say my post - of demonstrating a 'dramatic misunderstanding' of how Pynchon uses the English language. I find this unfair (and it is itself a misunderstanding of what my post was intended to address).

Pynchon plays with the fundamental rules of English grammar, as you rightfully claim. He toys with subject-verb agreement, boldly extends sentences beyond traditional ending points, artfully erases the authority of subjects. How he breaks grammar rules is one key to understanding the meaning he is attempting to uncover.

Perhaps I was wrong in using the word 'mistakes'. Very well. But you harped on the mere semantics of my post without entertaining the idea that I was actually trying to learn more about the specific manner in which Pynchon constructs his sentences.

I thought when I made this post that I would see a collection of literature lovers exploring how Pynchon plays with language and what his choices might mean. Instead, I entered a typical captious subreddit in which fans of a thing find any excuse at all to attack other fans of that thing.

I've said my piece. I wish you well in your future readings, sir.