argument, is about scope, and he’s about being a 
catalyst and an inspiration for others, he’s not 
about that precision, that’s for a later generation. 
But again, with somebody like Elizabeth Eisenstein 
there’s this begrudging recognition of McLuhan, 
this sense that, oh, he was so avant-garde, and he 
so put off people about these kinds of studies that 
they didn’t take them up. Well, to many of us 
coming along later, that’s kind of hard to 
understand since what he in fact did was put 
forward this kind of inspired view of these master 
historical patterns that allowed others to then 
come along and do the more detailed work. There 
was a reason why, as McLuhan said, historians,