In 1986 Stringfellow Barr, an historian and president of St John's College in Maryland, wrote a Socratic critique of American discourse: "There is a pathos in television dialogue: the rapid exchange of monologues that fail to find the issue, like ships passing in the night; the reiterated preface, 'I think that...,' as if it mattered who held the opinion rather than which opinion is worth holding; the impressivepersonal vanity that prevents each 'discussant' from really listening to another speaker."

Socrates' alternative was "good" conversation or dialectic. To converse originally meant to turn towaeds one another, in order to find a common humanity and to move closer to the truth of something. Dialectic, in other words, is decidely not about winning or losing, because all the conversants are ennobled by it. It is a joint search. Unfortunately, as Mr Barr put it, it is also "the most difficult" kind of conversation "especially for Americans to achieve."

- The Economist

Medium v Smedium

There is an oft made claim that, until recently, found it's way out of my mouth on regular occasions: the book is always better than the movie. The why is easy. The book is rich with details and subplots which are impractical for and inexpressible by film. Though, like a critical thinker of any level should, I revisited the evidence and arguments. At times I rejected the mantra by claiming that the mediums sought different ends entirely, each sought it's own expression of a story, each highlighted a different perspective or mood. At times I relied on strict inference from data rather than stronger metaphysical claims - noting that always makes the heart grow weary.

I renounce any previous positive conviction of the claim; it is certainly false. I further deny my compromises and reformulations of the claim. The movie is always better than the book, if George Clooney stars in it.