6 Introduction
count of a prior disposition on their parts to agree with some-
thing like my general approach to these matters. There were
other, less enthusiastic reactions as well, however. Regarding
these, though, I can honestly say that, to this point, all have
been based on misunderstandings-sometimes extravagant-
of my lecture's central contentions. This is not, I think, because
what I said that day was particularly difficult to follow, but
rather because I did not advance the conventional argument
that many critics quite reasonably expected me to make, and so
they reflexively read into my words the one they were already
prepared to reject. As a consequence, I have been asked repeat-
edly in the past few years to answer objections to positions I
have never taken. The only good thing I can report about this
is that I seem to have nearly perfected a tone of voice that veils
vexation behind lustrous clouds of disingenuous patience; and
the acquisition of a new social skill is always a blessing. But
otherwise, to tell the truth, this is just the sort of conversa-
tion that makes the pleasure of even the most charming soiree
begin to pall; I mean, really, how many times can one say, 'Tm
sorry, you've mistaken me for someone else" before the siren
song of the cocktail-shaker across the room becomes irresist-
ible, or before one suddenly remembers that one is extremely
late for a pressing appointment one has made with the large
topiary duck in the garden? So it is my hope that here, in com -
pany with the rest of my argument, the questions I raised and
points I made in that earlier, more fragmentary presentation
will be so clear as to require no further elaboration. Then the
argument as a whole may instead, I hope, simply be accepted
or rejected or ignored, as the reader pleases. But, for me at
least, debate is otiose. For better or worse, my reasoning con -
vinces me entirely, and that- sadly or happily-will certainly
never change.