David Antin’s essay, “The Theory and Practice of Postmodernism: A Manifesto,” employs the language which is described in Jonathan Kern’s essay, “Writing for Broadcast.” However, Antin’s essay goes a step further by creating a comprehensive look at what language sounds like. Kerns stresses that when writing for something that is meant to be heard, you have to repeat the subject of the sentence, using shorter sentences and many pronouns within the dialogue (27). However, the departure in Kern’s structure comes into play when Antin plays around with what we hear versus what we see; if something is meant to be heard, does it matter what it looks like? Antin, writes his essay, as though it is meant to be heard, but in doing so, shows what the listener automatically will grammatically correct, based on a well established knowledge of structure. Do we need uppercase? Do we really need quotation marks? Do we need to capitalize names? Antin shows what the brain will automatically correct what we see versus what we hear: “at this point i am getting slightly desperate i want to get out of there   elenor i say if you dont like this one why dont you take the one next to it” (120). Similar to the way that the listener may be “making breakfast, or behind the wheel of their car,” (27), the reader is not distracted by the grammatical errors, because his focus, first was in making a dialogue that could be heard rather than seen. When Antin writes his essay, however, he calls into question, the necessity of clarifying subjects, quotes, and proper nouns. If the reader is following along, what is the point in over exemplifying what each part of the sentence means? If we can hear it in our ears, we can hear it in our minds.