In 1993, a volume of essays was published, discussing, inter alia, the importance, style, narrativity, rhetoric and impact of a single controversial scientific paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin’s ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm’. Gould himself contributed an essay in which he addressed the paper’s historical context but also included sub-chapters with ‘Some Personal Thoughts and Admissions’ and ‘Random (and Therefore Nonadaptive) Jottings on Commentaries’. One of the aspects he stresses is the specific language, rhetoric and imagery chosen for the argument:

He later adds, ‘Scientists, for the most part, simply do not acknowledge that the form and language of an argument (as opposed to its logic and empirical content) could have anything to do with its effectiveness.’ At the end of the essay, he returns to this point and once more emphasizes the role of style:

The uncommon features of ‘Spandrels’ that Gould addresses, that is the figurative and personal language, the use of rhetoric and an eloquent style, are frequently associated with the essay, and, following his argument, the juxtaposition of science and the essay in the title of my own contribution to this volume may indicate an oxymoron or, at least, an exception from very rigid rules. After all, William H. Gass made it quite clear that a