Alright. Time to come clean. I have deliberately deceive you, my dear Reader. Amazed, you looked at me, gaping. When you first read the web, you thought it is a pure, simple linear site. you thought gleefully to yourself, yes! This is absolutely wonderful! Here finally is one considerate Internet writer who understands me ! You thought that this absolutely imitated the world of books where first you open up the contents page, then read the story and go to the analysis.

But I think you were slightly perturbed by the colloquial language I used, a language that seems to reflect the sigh! decadence of the electronic world, where people no longer cared about good "English" and good grammatical structures. Were you too, squirming when I gave you so many questions in my commentary? Or when I refused to make everything clear in my commentary but threw in short phrases, short statements and made you think what I was driving at ?

But have I really created a linear web? Think about your reading experience. I have provided you, my reader so many ways of traversing the text. One, the straight boring way where you read first the contents page then my story and then my commentary. To such a reader
I have nothing to say. I have merely wasted my time embedding the links, that is all. But to the reader who itched to click the mouse everytime a link appeared, you would have noticed this That I was mocking the very idea of reading linearly.

Think back. when you were started off in my narrative, it seemed innocuous, safe and linear. But as you travel through fictional dreams, what happen? you found yourself going off in different directions, you thought of other connections, other writers, intellectuals like Foucault and you also found yourself perhaps even reading on in the comments and later guiltily going back to the story or even going off into other narratives. And you found that perhaps my story was not as linear as it seemed to be. For had you jumbled up the sequence of events in the story or in the commentaryÖ it would have still made sense. And had you explored the links at random, you would have found that you could have started at the beginning of the narrative but ended at the middle or even more amazingly landing at the end of the narrative without passing through the middle section of the story. OR even as you explored the comments you found yourself going back to sections of the story to understand parts of the commentary. You could have revisited some parts of the story multiple times while bypassing part of the story. Yet, think now. Haven't you ever skim through parts of a novel and jump back to certain sections, think of other books and jump back to other sections of the novel you were supposed to be reading linearly ?

And haven't you found that even sections of what I wrote supposedly meant to be read in sequence could be broken up and read in different order AND they still made SENSE! So doesn't this relate to Barthes' Death of the author where the text stands alone ?

So even when you were (supposing you love linearity!) frustrated with the links which you felt broke up the linearity of the story,and blame me for breaking up the "linearity" of your reading experience, is this not a total fallacy?

For perhaps this is the way we think: not linearly but with multiple associations. If perhaps this supposedly linear webpage has lead you to question your assumptions about reading text, then perhaps those hours I spent on linking section to section has not been wasted. See ya!

Because the goal of literary work is to make the reader no longer the consumer but a producer of the text"