Sir, One does not ask a blind person to review a painting, or a deaf one to evaluate a symphony. Similarly a person, whose lack of sympathy with a particular kind of language, style or subject is virtually all embracing, should not offer views on such matters in the review pages of a serious newspaper.
John Boland's piece ("Gender jargon in the groves of gobbledegook", April 12th) is snide in tone and absolutely unenlightening in content except, that is, for what it reveals of the author's prejudices. Academic language is necessarily precise and sometimes uses words of more than two syllables it is not intended for six year olds.
Mr Boland's jibes about the alleged incomprehensibility of academic writing may ultimately have less to do with his views on linguistic style than with his difficulties with the subject of gender studies. Could it be that his "aversion to the subject of gender studies" (his words) stems from an unwillingness on his part to acknowledge that issues of power and patriarchy in society actually need to be addressed?
Sex, Nation and Dissent (the present writer had no involvement in the book) is a fresh, well written and creative attempt to address a number of key issues concerning sexuality, identity and oppositional voices in Irish writing. It is written with a serious purpose the least it deserves is a serious review. Yours etc
Department of Geography, University College Cork.