Author 1 In 1959, Sir Charles Snow published the "Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution," which was both the title and the subject of the Rede Lecture he had given earlier at Cambridge University. The lecture was intended to illuminate what Sir Charles saw as a great problem of our age - the opposition of art and science, or, more precisely, the implacable hostility between literary intellectuals (sometimes called humanists) and physical sciences. The publication of the book caused a small rumble among academics (let us say, a 2.3 on the Richter Scale), not least because Snow came down so firmly on the side of the sciences, giving humanists ample reason and openings for sharp, funny, and nasty ripostes. But the controversy did not last long, and the book quickly faded from view. For good reason. Sir Charles had posed the wrong question, given the wrong argument, and therefore offered an irrelevant answer. Humanists and scientists have no quarrel, at least none that is of sufficient interest to most people. Author 2 In July 1970 a book called "x" appeared. It has since sold over seven million copies around the world, an astounding sale, considering that it does not deal with Hollywood or sex. It offers no how-to advice or get-rich-quick schemes. It is a serious work of social analysis and criticism which has left a deep mark on readers in every walk of life.. The very phrase "x" has entered the daily vocabulary and now appears in many dictionaries. Author 3 Ottawa - The usual newspaper in this country is small, unambitious, prosperous and, in most senses, quite dreadful. The telephone rang in my Ottawa apartment just after 2:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, August 27, 1980. On the line was Doug Small, editor of FP News Service, offspring of the giant Thompson newspaper empire. He said, "The Ottawa Journal has just been folded." I said, "Oh, shit." Thomas Three individuals writing, each trying to capture my attention and interest by saying something in their first paragraph. I find myself not interested in content but in style, I don't have enough information to comment on their content without seeming to nit-pick. Author 1 is suave, literate, clever and in a way has tried to capture my attention by setting me up with a beautiful testimony to Snow and the coup de grace. He is also leading me to consider his explanation and to develop the knowledge of what is the right question, the right argument and to avoid the crassness of an irrelevant answer. He invites me to be his co-conspirator and he will whisper the truth in my ear. Author 2 considers his strongest argument the development of the credibility of his subject. This mysterious and famous sage who is on the cutting edge. The implication is that by failure to consider the value of the great man, I will be failing to take advantage of what many others have. Author 3 gives me the old one/two. First, I am presented (as truth) a number of damaging statements and then I am sucked into the action. And finally, I am challenged with the authors response. Pure detective story - read on and find out what this means. And so we have our little cast of characters beginning to reveal themselves, a smoothie, a pedantic and the flim flam man. The first offers me reason, the second, the great man theory and the third, an inside peak into an industry. Each has a story to tell, a truth to share, an expose - what an adventure. They have focused me in different subject areas, the first in philosophy, the second in social analysis and criticism and the third in the News industry. As the salesman walking through my front door, each must take their best shot at getting my attention and they have all succeeded. After all you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. The other thing that strikes my attention is time. The first quotes 1950, the second 1960 and 70, and the third refers to 1980. I guess that I am responsible for 1990. I therefore have the advantage of hindsight, in that history will have unfolded from those times and the facts of reality will have unveiled themselves. Author 1 speaks as a storyteller, he appears as the disinterested but wise observer. Through his eyes, he speaks as the third person, the work "I" does not grace his prose, the collective pronoun "we" is implied in the phrase "to most people". Author 2 is not in the story at all, speaking in a very objective and authoritative prose. A reciter of facts, which imply some absolute truth, something so self evident that the very telling of it establishes it's credentials. Author 3 speaks in three voices, one, an editorialist, an interpreter, a setter of an opinion, second, a screenwriter setting the stage and three the actor, stepping into the scene with his own personal human response. And as for myself, I leave it to others to judge or evaluate my comments.
