A man--Buck--wrote a vindication in the seventeenth-century, and Horace Walpole in the eighteenth, and someone named Markham in the nineteenth ... And who in the twentieth?No one that I know of.Then what's wrong with your doing it?But it wont' be the same, don't you see? It won't be a great discovery.He said it in capitals. A GREAT DISCOVERY.Grant smiled at him.Oh, come, you can't expect to pick GREAT DISCOVERIES off bushes. If you can't be a pioneer what's wrong with leading a crusade?A crusade?Certainly.Against what?Tonypandy.
In the dialogue, one character reflects on historical figures who have written justifications or vindications across various centuries, noting a gap in the twentieth century. The absence of a contemporary voice raises the question of why one should not attempt to fill that void. While one character is hesitant, feeling that their contribution cannot match past great discoveries, the other counters that significant contributions do not simply arise spontaneously and that leading a crusade can still be a worthwhile endeavor.
The conversation reveals the tension between the desire for originality and the acknowledgment of the importance of advocacy. By suggesting that leading a crusade against something like "Tonypandy" could be valuable, it underscores the idea that while the quest for groundbreaking insights may not be attainable for everyone, taking a stand and addressing relevant issues remains a noble and necessary pursuit.
