I like your distinction between intertextuality and hypertextuality. As you note, a webessay with links to its citations, while not necessarily a Moulthropian native-hypertext, is still, for all that, much different than an essay which appears in print and has footnotes and a works cited. I somehow am trying to overlay this in my mind, that darned Kairos as layers of meaning thing, with Johndan's "from story telling to map making." The other place that image stands out for me, map making, is in James Britton's _Language and Learning_, where he tells how he and his brother would wander the country-side near his home as young boys. Upon their return home they'd update and add to their map. Britton writes: The map was a record of our wanderings, and each time we returned we added to it or corrected it. It was, though a crude one, a representation of the area; we valued it as a cumulative record of our activities there. Furthermore, looking forward instead of back, the map set forth our expectations concerning this area as we approached it afresh each time. Here's my attempt at overlay then: First, the Intertextual and native-hypertextual while offering distinct features will not always appear as distinct or separate entities, much the way, say a story like Ulysses covers a mappable landscape and mythicscape. That said, maps, as Britton acknowledges--celebrates--provide a means of looking both forward and back *and* at what is at hand--the famous You Are Here principle. I've always viewed stories as maps, now with this technology, the mapping can be made more pronounced, and how we read or follow a story?...Well they don't call them bookmarks for nothing.
Answer to Porush