strings of notes cohering trees

---

Internet writing easily allows narrative strings to branch like a tree
(or field paths) in which one can get lost.

I guess one could theorize hypertext writing as a kind of string theory
of texted virtuality.

After all, phenomenology was always textual, always about there being this here between us, belonging together in there being our inevitably different stances on there being this same glyphicality—different presence of the same.

One follows a link in a line of narrative which links further within
a constellative archetexture, though the first narrative was the author’s guiding point of telling: the main line through a landscape.

That requires using one’s browser “back” button—a distinctly 21st century condition of reading! But that’s not as bad as reading scholarship that inserts discursive footnotes, placed at the back of the book, along with mere source citations, such that a reader must flip back and forth during reading, not knowing at the main text point whether or not another superscript refers to an exposition in the back of the book or just another bibliographical citation. And that’s not as bad as the scholar who writes without footnotes, because s/he’s given authority, and only provides a bibliography, thereby denying the reader a chance to know why s/he makes a controversial claim.

Excuse me: I digress…using one’s “back” button—like climbing
down tree branches for return to the branching place (or tracing back
an unbeaten path to the main one) where a reader was supposed
(by the branching writer) to be going one way in a landscape where paths may also cross others ahead, as well as some tracing back
to a shared branching point, like postings nested in ongoing blogs
which tend to imply their own story (string of co-temporal postings, as blogs do), but link to each other like subterranean root rhizomes—heartstrings—among trees of a wood “communicating”: “We are here.”

---