÷ there is nothing but extratext, in sum an žunceasing prefaceÓ÷

- Derrida, Dissemination


I speak here, in this preface of sorts, as if it and the following text are separate. But can they truly be? This preface is part of the reading experience, after all, part of "the text, if you will."

And isnŪt the "pre" in preface purposefully misleading? Everyone knows that if the preface is to comment on the main text, it must be written post-text. As Derrida points out, the text exists as something written - a past -- which, under false appearance of a present, a hidden omnipotent author (in full mastery of his product) is presenting to the reader as his future. I, your certainly-far-from-omnipotent author, in no way wish to dictate to you, reader, your past present or future. So please forgive this semblance of a preface.







Back to the... begining? Get me out of here!