sexual relation, punctuation. standard form s are imposed on consciousness and b eh avior— on know ing and exp ressin g— so that we will not presum e freedom , so
that freedom will appear — in all its particulars — impossible and unworkable, so that we will not know what telling the truth is, so that we will not feel com pelled
to tell it, so that we will spend ou r time and our holy
hum an energy telling the necessary lies.
standard form s are sometimes called conventions,
conventions are m ightier than armies, police, and prisons. each citizen becomes the enforcer, the doorkeeper, an instrum ent o f the Law, an u nfeeling guard pun ching his fellow man hard in the belly.
I am an anarchist. I dont sue, I dont get injunctions, I
advocate revolution, and when people ask me what
can we do that’s practical, I say, weakly, weaken the
fabric of the system wherever you can, make possible
the increase of freedom, all kinds. When I write I
try to extend the possibilities of expression.
. . . I had tried to speak to you honestly, in my own
way, undisguised, trying to get rid, it’s part o f my obligation to the muse, of the ancien regime o f grammar.
. . . the revisions in typography and punctuation
have taken from the voice the difference that distin
Afterword
201
guishes passion from affection and me speaking to
you from me writing an essay.
Julian Beck, 1965, in a foreword
to an edition of
BELIEVE THE PUNCTUATION.
Muriel Rukeyser
there is a great deal at stake here, many writers
fight this battle and most lose it. what is at stake for
the writer? freedom o f invention, freedom to tell the
truth, in all its particulars, freedom to imagine new
structures.
(the burden o f proof is not on those who presume
freedom, the burden o f p roof is on those who would
in any way diminish it. )
what is at stake for the enforcers, the doorkeepers,
the guardians o f the L aw —the publishing corporations,
the book reviewers who do not like lower case letters,
the librarians who will not stack books without standard
punctuation (that was the reason given Muriel Rukeyser
when her work was violated)—what is at stake for them?
why do they continue to enforce?
while this book may meet much resistance— anger,
fear, dislike—law? police? courts? —at this moment I
must write: Ive attacked the fundaments o f culture,
thats ok. Ive attacked male dominance, thats ok. Ive
attacked every heterosexual notion o f relation, thats
ok. Ive in effect advocated the use o f drugs, thats ok.
