In this essay, Derrida criticizes structuralism, considering it as non-creative as compared to the act of writing or reading a work.  Structural critics block off certain aspects of the work, creating limitations and defeating the form (5) to make their analysis possible.  This is pushed to the point where structuralism itself becomes analyzed in what Derrida terms as “ultrastructuralism” thus further pushing away the actual work. 

            By concentrating on only certain aspects of a work, structuralism highlights only certain parts of the whole, paraphrasing the whole into segments, an act deconstructive and destructive in nature. Derrida claims that this is not a proper approach to a work because of the idea that the work itself is never in the “present.”  On page 14, he states:

“The history of the work is not only its past, the eve or the sleep in which it precedes itself in an author’s intentions, but it is also the impossibility of its ever being present, of its ever being summarized by some absolute simultaneity or instantaneousness.  This is why, as we will verify, there is no space of the work, if by space we mean presence and synopsis.”

This suggests that a work is always in continual motion, never stagnant or static which would then hinder the criticism process.  This is an important piece because the thoughts that Derrida has brought forth against structuralism can be used in favor of hypertext as well.  In terms of hypertext, it is obviously difficult to ever summarize a hypertext work; the idea that it lacks a tangible presence is an interesting consideration because then the idea of the presence of the electronic world comes into play. 

Chapters 2 and 3 of Hypertext cover a lot in terms of information on hypertext.  There were a few things that stuck out for me, illustrating the importance of what we are venturing into.  The end of linear writing is the end of the book as Derrida states.  This brought to mind a book I read by Carol Maso called “Ghost Dance,” a novel that was not written linearly yet throughout the class discussion no one had thought of including it as an example of hypertext or even suggesting the “end of the book.”  On page 67 of Landow, it is quoted that “this death of the book undoubtedly announces…nothing buta  death of speech… and a new mutation in the history of writing in history, in history as writing.”  The book as a physical form I feel will probably never “die” out since a few books out there like “Ghost Dance” and even “House of Leaves” have elements of hypertext without the digital. 

            As Landow goes through different elements of reconfiguring the text in chapter 3, one thought kept coming to mind.  He discusses the idea of the fixed role of the author to just say as “the writer” and wonders why an author would subject his or herself to such a command by the publishing company or agency.  Writing as well as animation or illustration as a form of creation is offered by hypertext along with many other things that the print world might otherwise limit from the creators.  This idea of creation outside of the text brought to my attention the website Youtube and video diaries – another step after blogging that he discussed.  In many videos up on such sites like Youtube, there is all types of media, including text; poetry, news, messages from the creator to the public.  I wonder if this would be included in any form of hypertext or is it too outside the realm.  

 But when it comes to academic readings, why do I always have trouble?  I could read something three times and still wonder if I have come away with an understanding of what the heck the writer was trying to say.  Does the writer even know what he or she is writing about?  Or do they simply write with the hopes that someone out there will critique it, understand it or at least fake it to seem smart and the work will live on. 

 Bah, why am I even worried about this?  I’ve gotten through the material and that should be that.  But the thing is… I often find myself remembering random passage from McGann or Landow.  (Deleuze not so much.) 

Wonder-rooms would never have this problem.  She was too busy being facinated by her own body.  She used to stare at the mirror for hours instead of reading her assignments.  It would have been okay had she been more feminine but I couldn’t be impressed with her bulging muscles.  Maybe that’s why every time I think of Landow I get a vision of chin-ups.