THE VIEWS EXPRESSED in this collection of essays by 44 Canadian women writing in English were directed mainly by the questions the contributors were asked to address around feminism, race, class, sexual orientation, and theory. Presented with 44 essays on these issues, you look forward to a wide range of opinions and new perspectives on subjects that have seen a fair amount of print over the last 30 years. There`s no doubt that Language in Her Eye offers differing views. Not all of the essays, however, offer new perspectives. Some of them even revert to prejudice and name-calling. The first essay, by Margaret Atwood, displays a generalized concept of feminism that hasn`t changed from when she was a young woman in the age of metal curlers and panty girdles. She couches her language in vague accusations of "manipulations" of young women writers who come to her at parries or "under cover of night" to whisper how they`ve been "worked over" by women in positions of power. Then the most powerful woman of CanLit proceeds to warn us of the coercion of the ism of feminism, the damaging consequences of "Thoughtcrime," whatever that is, and of theory that apparently has the power to "amputate ... repress ... create a batch of self-righteous rules and regulations ... foster nail-biting self consciousness to the point of total block." " Not a difficult task since women, according to Atwood, "are particularly subject to squeeze-plays ... are heavily socialized to please, [and] it`s easy to make them feel guilty, about almost anything" It makes one grateful that one doesn`t attend the same parties as Atwood. The vague and sweeping charges do not stop with Atwood. The blame for self doubt is too often shifted to abstract notions of feminism, academe, or theory - or squarely on to the shoulders of other women. The cover states that the book deals with writing and gender; but the accusatory, sometimes rancorows and often paranoid tone of some of the essays makes you wonder what all this has to do with writing and makes you pray it has nothing to do with gender. Paulette Jiles takes it upon herself to free all women from the "Thought Police," a term she applies to "politically correct feminists," although one suspects it may also have something to do with phobia or perhaps with Atwood`s "Thoughtcrime." Anne Cameron advocates "equality and an end to stupidity" but condemns "academic women ... making sixty or seventy thousand dollars a year ... born to middle-class comfort..." Obviously her vision of "the coming together of all the colours of sisters and cousins" doesn`t embrace those very women who fight for equality in maledominated universities. When she advocates "the overthrow of all the bullshit," you wonder how she proposes to go about it if women are not allowed education or the competitive salaries of men. You wonder how women`s writing will he recognized, since its main audience is the university where it is mainly women "academics" who teach contemporary women`s Writing. Janette Turner Hospital seeks "to he as sensitive -as a tuning fork to the lives of women," but catcalls "career feminists, both writers and academics" as the "Jimmy Swaggarts" of feminism. The best thing about Hospital`s assessment is its brevity. Libby Scheier`s essay, the only contribution by an editor, also suffers from contention that sometimes verges on paranoia. While the essay traces the painful and often touching process of her writing life, it gets absorbed in a retaliatory tone that challenges various "charges against bee` and against one of her books. She labels theoretical concepts as "buzzphrases," criticizes those who oversimplify their use, then implies that such terms as postmodernism and deconstruction are interchangeable. Nobody is forcing or telling Scheier how to write or what theories to adopt; but if she chooses to criticize certain theories she would do well to heed the advice of deconstructionists who deem it important that a challenger be at least acquainted with the terms of a system in order to breach it. Otherwise the terms become exactly what Scheier disparages: buzzphrases. The collection`s best essays focus mainly on the process of writing. Gail Scott`s "A Feminist at the Carnival" addresses the irony and ambivalence of being a feminist and artist at this time in history. First published in French, it appeared in English in her collection of essays, Spaces Like Stairs, and imparts a generosity beyond the intolerance that has become an emblem of this country. Marlene Nourbese Philip`s "The Disappearing Debate" -articulates the issue of race, culture, and censorship more eloquently than anyone I`ve read or heard. Erin Moure`s "Poetry, Memory and the Polis" is brave and astute in its challenge to the order that frames women`s everyday lives. Daphne Marlatt traces her process of 30 years with a sensibility and attentiveness reflected in so much of her work. Susan Swan and Beverley Daurio dare address the problem of desire in the writing of heterosexual women, a subject that needs redefinition now that the old rules no longer apply. And there are several others, including the "academics" After Anne Carneroris remarks I was relieved to read that Linda Escutcheon came from a working-class background, but I was even more relieved by and admiring of the competence of some of these "academi(!` essays. Yes, some are demanding but surely we have reached a point in this exciting phase of our writing history when, even if we dorft always understand, we can at least appreciate the dfference of each woman`s focus. June Callwood writes that over the last 50 years she has had the "good fortune to watch as the confidence and authority of women writers unfold. We haven`t reached the point of fairness," she cautions, "but half a century ago, when I began, we women had only a foot in the door, and now were dancing all over the room` Now that`s the party I would choose to attend.