Tentatively, Convenience's Reviews > The L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E Book

This was the 2nd or 3rd bk I was published in so, of course, I was thrilled. The bk contains a review by Bruce Andrews of my 1st bk [see GoodReads reviews of my 1st bk here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25...] & my response to Andrews' review. When my letter was originally published in L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E it was retyped by Andrews & completely botched as a result. Therefore, it was a relief when Bernstein consulted me before this bk came out so that I cd correct Andrews' mistakes.

Despite the personal problems that I had w/ L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, I'll always have great affection & enthusiasm for this bk. Anyone who's ever been involved in the early days of a movement can identify w/ the exhilaration of witnessing formative ideas flying fast & furious.

For me, 'language writing' was a way of approaching language that rendered difficult the reader's non-critical reading of the text. Given that I'm also a film & vaudeo maker, I found this akin to the 'Structuralist' (&, as I later found out, Materialist) project of calling attn to the materials used. As such, 'Structuralist' filmmakers were a bit theoretically ahead of the 'language writers' unless one counts Gertrude Stein & Jackson Mac Low as 'language writers' instead of as proto-'language writers'.

At any rate, the initial 'language writing' was anti-transparency & there was a political subtext of encouraging more participatory media. If one's to read, one shd also write what one is reading.. somehow. & be conscious of it. Such ideas seemed to get progressively more muddied as 'language writing' became more & more of an academic bandwagon.

Whatever. The bk's divided into 3 main sections: "POETICS AND LANGUAGE", "WRITING AND POLITICS", & "READINGS". There's such an impressive selection of writers here that no matter what the theory this makes a fascinating read.