What's so bad about dictation?

Theological liberals try to lampoon plenary verbal inspiration as the "dictation" theory of inspiration. That's despite the fact that classic exponents of verbal plenary inspiration like Warfield champion the "organic" theory of inspiration. To caricature plenary verbal inspiration as the dictation theory is either an ignorant misrepresentation or malicious misrepresentation. 

That said, what's so bad about a dictation theory of inspiration? Consider the following:

1:11 “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” 

19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.  

2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:  

8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write:  

12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write:  

18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write:  

3:1 “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: 

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:  

14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write:  

21:5 “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

Looks like a dead-ringer for a dictation theory of inspiration to me. Christ casts John in the role of scribe or stenographer. Christ dictates seven letters to John. In addition, the specter of John taking dictation extends more broadly in 1:19 and 21:5 to the entire experience.

So, there's nothing intrinsically unfitting about a dictation theory of inspiration. On the face of it, here's a prime example. 

Now, some scholars might dismiss this as a literary convention. Possibly. But if Christ speaks to John in a vision, why wouldn't he tell John to transcribe what he says? Unless you think the vision itself is a literary convention, why assume the dictation is a literary convention? For speakers are a fixture of the vision. And the only reason to classify the vision itself as a literary convention is if you reject visionary revelation outright.

I'd add that even if you deny divine revelation, it's a fact that some people have visions. You might try to explain that away naturalistically, but since visions are a common religious phenomenon, there's no reason to automatically classify a visionary account as a literary convention. Although that's a convention in some instance (e.g. 1 Enoch), that doesn't squeeze out records of real visions.

My point is not that dictation is the only, primary, or even usual mode of Biblical inspiration. But when theological liberals burn this in effigy, it's worth noting that a dictation theory of inspiration is not outlandish. And, in fact, it's not just a "theory," anymore than verbal plenary inspiration is just a "theory." Scripture bears witness to both modes of inspiration.