Acker, reading Butler’s essay, would no doubt have valued the subversive potential of the “reverse mime” (“Bodies” 163) plus the phallus that is lesbian it postulates.
However it is Butler’s respect for philosophical and linguistic possibility (“If it had been feasible… ”) which makes her methodology that is deconstructive from Acker’s viewpoint. For as Acker over and over over and over repeatedly keeps in regards to her belated fiction, it’s perhaps maybe not the feasible nevertheless the impossible uses of language that interest her. Whenever, after acknowledging the significance of Butler’s speculations in regards to the discursive constitution of materiality, Acker asks the question, “Who is any more interested when you look at the feasible? ”, she signals her parting of means utilizing the philosopher. The road into the lesbian phallus is not the road towards the literary works associated with human body, for the human body is defined through the outset as an impossible objective.