May 30, 1997

Professor Ralph Cohen, Editor 
New Literary History  
219 Bryan Hall  
University of Virginia  
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903

Dear Professor Cohen,

I have received the proofs for my essay as well as for my “response” to Gregory Ulmer's critique. You will note that in the corrected proof of my response I have restored several sentences and phrases that you had omitted. My reasons for restoring these sentences are complex and are not the sign of any discursive possessiveness: I have restored my original text not because I think there is anything unique in my “style” that your “editing” has damaged. I have rather restored my original text because the editing COMPLETELY distorts my text and renders my argument nonsensical. The most important section of my original text that I have restored here relates to Mr. Ulmer's use of “he” in reference to me—a woman of color. You have simply (i.e. “editorially") crossed out his “he” and put a “she” in its place. I leave aside the fact that in your “crossing out” and “entering” a new pronoun, you have yourself repeated the gesture of marginalization. My topic here is Ulmer's “theory” and not your patriarchal editorial gesture. To be more precise: the question is not simply an “editorial” mistake; it is the matter of a philosophical “blindness” that Ulmer regards (in a de Manian gesture) to be a sign of his “insight” and I have indicated that it is in fact a historical “blindness”. My point in my response is that the kind of “formalist” closure that Ulmer places on history, limits ("blinds") him to the “other”. I have used the example of his almost “automatic” use of the masculine pronoun to be a marker of the historical limits of his theory. To do what you have done—simply CORRECT his MISTAKE by a move of your editorial pen is not only to misunderstand my point but to repeat the masculinist gesture that he has founded his text on. So, please restore my text and print it as I have indicated in my proofs. These are, I am sure you agree, complex issues and not so much personal (between me as writer and you as editor) as philosophical—they have to be debated and critiqued and not simply “editorially” corrected.

I look forward to seeing my text (as I have corrected it) in print. Thank you for your interest in my work.

Sincerely,

/s Amrohini Sahay