I think I (semi-intentionally) put Collin and Michael in the same bed with the afternoon/amazon connection. My point with that, I guess, was that I didn't see hypertext in general as all that revolutionary; mostly, I see it as conserving (and increasing) existing lines of power. I'm struck by the faith in the power of the node/link structure to change the world when in fact that possibility lies largely elsewhere. Hypertext is only a part of resistance when it enters into a relationship that's *already* a resistance--when, for example, a postmodern reader uses it to make concrete their attempts to overthrow a print text, or when a resistant reader uses it to make concrete their attempts to insert their voice into the text.

This is not to say that hypertext is a tool, but that the term "hypertext" *is* too broad to retain critical power on its own; what we call "hypertext" varies wildly from context to context. In a review of my book several years ago, one of the Eastgate group said that I was very pessimistic about hypertext, but the Web was going to solve most of the problems I forecast. But I don't see it happening yet; I see us trying to measure water with a seive.

(Notably, I see this impulse *less* in our conversation than in culture(s) at large; the discussion here has been much more self critical, which is why I see the possibility of raising this point at at all.)

All of which raises, of course, the question of *how* social change is possible.

- Johndan