People read my paper on feral hypertext! And (I think) misquoted me in just the way that I’ve been thinking, lately, was perhaps what I really meant. I wrote the paper about hypertext, sticking rather closely to the history of hypertext rather than trying to talk about, you know, everything. But Robert Leston at Neo Baroque mentions that “the distinction Jill Walker makes between feral and domestic writing”, see, that’s a broader distinction than I think I actually made in my paper but one I was musing over, vaguely, over the weekend, thinking that perhaps that’s too big a distinction. And I was thinking that I far prefer the word “feral” to “distributed” and that perhaps it would be more interesting to talk about feral narrative than distributed narrative, but then, where, exactly would that get me? Maybe not where I want to go, though where, exactly, do I want to go anyway?
Jill’s paper helps illustrate D&G’s thinking of the rhizome and how community and multiplicity can be made, but not from the perspective of the individual or the centralized location or the blog or from internet writing but by taking any of those notions and subtracting, dispersing.
I get that! It’s not exactly what I meant, quite, but it’s what I mean, kind of. I love how ideas change, just a little, but wonderfully, as they slip from mind to mind. And it’s exactly the sort of thing Justin Hall tried to write about, and I quoted him and Robert requotes him: “to write on the web itself, not on a web page. Disappear from any central location; intead, inhabit the web as a sort of spirt. My personality, commentary, reflections, stories, notions popping up on other web sites.” Is this how it works?
And what does it mean that I still bring it back again by writing about it here on my very author-centered, orderly blog?