Where do we begin?

With an explanation of the blog name, I presume, lest I be accused of deliberate obscurantism. First things first: I think I am going to be a rather bad blogger. I only feel like writing when I have to rant against someone or something, or when I have poetic fancies and need to off-load.
Neither of them are attractive prospects, I guess, for the reader. But let me give myself some credit for the time being and see how this shapes up.
Onto Lacan: I know that being but in the first year of my M.A. and having read about three or four essays/extracts from Lacan, I'd sound rather 'echore paka' (this lovely Bengali phrase meaning precocious) if I presume to present a formal critique of Lacan here. But the reaction to him comes as one from the guts: I'd have major problems with anybody who presumes that something as protean and as unfixed, as socially contingent as Language can be pinned down analytically in a principle like the law-of-the-father. That precludes the possibility of viable alternative, contingent or simultaneous subject-positions vis-a-vis language, except 'man' and 'woman'. As someone who has - for the past few years - negotiated with terms like 'gay', 'bisexual', 'effeminate', 'boy', 'man' etc. and managed to retain some working sense of selfhood (I hope), may be I have a right to claim that Lacan was wrong, or at least fell short of the radical possibilties of a post-structuralist attitude to language. Incidentally, there are excellent and perceptive critiques of Lacan by the likes of Kaja Silverman and Judith Butler. Some useful web addresses on Lacan I found: http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/fai/Faculty/Professors/Protevi/DG/Lacan_notes.html
and http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/theory/psychoanalysis/lacandevelopmain.html