So, I've been reading theories of hypertext (rhizome blah blah blah) and, as usual, getting frustrated. Interesting points come up, but I'm never satisfied, I never reach a good stopping point; "I read this bloody bit before. Is it really so important?" The above-linked author (Drew) keeps talking about how a hypertext author should set up expectations of link targets, much as an orator or a writer traditionally would set up expectations for what comes next, etc. But the connection between linked word and target in his text is completely Byzantine to me so I end up blundering around as in a shrub maze, rather than believing or disbelieving anything he says (except that he's trying to convince me about how much I'm learning, which I don't think is the case).

For the pundits, then, my theory of hypertext rhetoric is humbler. Writing a passage like this one is a lot like writing a traditional linear text, but it's a little more performative: I'm leading you through my argument with the traditional grammatical cues, but I also get to gesture at things--things that you need to know about to understand what I'm saying, things that flesh out my narrative. Does hypertext writing have to be so fundamentally different? Can't it just be writing-plus? I've yet to see what all these rhizomatics are really doing for us.

Call me small-minded.