The reason why I think reading is hard is we are exploring the infinite references to process it.

Reading is figuring out the framing of the writer's references, from his own literary text and also from other peoples' work he referred to. The more you read, the more you can merge/reference (to frame the context).

The frame of reference is often a frame-up. It allows us to economize words or their resonances to synthesize or disambiguate them.

我认为阅读难的原因是：这是一个探索无限引用链的活动。

阅读是在弄清作者的引用框架，就很像补全句子，把作者的各种指向定位到他的原文某处或者他引用的其他作者的对应文本位置。这里就需要拆开和重新编织。这通常是大脑自动完成的事，但是有时候他很累（说白了就是记不住）需要工具的辅助，因此我们进入了写作流程。

但这种引述是无穷无尽的，与其说是产生更多的版本，不如说是在不断的合并（merge）。概念是在不断合并的，但引用链上的人/内容可以不断增加。

Writing is to interpret such relations and connect them across the commons(usually words). Look at an example of [[Walter Benjamin]] and [[Derrida]] in terms of “commentary” and “frame”.

The Arcades Project-in Benjamin's mind, it always dwelt apart-is the working of quotations into the framework of montage, so much so that they eventually far outnumber the commentaries.

So Glas,which figures largely in this book, is recognizably a commentary on Hegel and Genet.

比如上面这个例子里，[[德里达]]和 [[瓦特本杰明]]这两个人对这个共同概念的解释。如果我们能识别这些概念，就会不断发现，在时间的尺度上，上一个、再上一个或更早的提出这个概念的人，实现连接和追溯。

Also, Derrida mentioned multiple times that Glas, quite literally, is written and risked "between" [[Hegel]] and [[Genet]]. Every existing writer is the continuation of other writers(also the non-beings), we are good at signing our names on so-called "original ideas" instead of recognizing the connections and acknowledging them.

德里达在Glas里反复强调，他就是在拆开[[黑格尔]]和[[让·热内]]，然后编织了Glas，也可以说在他们的思想之间建立了链接，通过文本（学）语言传递一种跨时空的真实性。德里达在延续黑格尔，Ted Nelson在延续 Vannevar bush(Memex)，每一个思想都不是绝对原创，而是某种延续。我们善于为其署上自己大名，而不善于识别、看见和承认这种延续。

Yet when we look more closely at this frame of reference, we become aware how much is presupposed. Writing, Derrida believes, undoes the illusion of the simple location of meaning or self-presence, an illusion fostered by what is nearest ourselves, our body but particularly our voice.

不同于口语（voice language)的即时性，写作是在纸面上建立这种“翻译”“引用”关系，因此有了组装的可能。这样我们可以看到“听”的时候我们自行加入的诸多假设，还原句子的本来面貌。

We call writing a literary language, it is not just the extension of voice language, but its own reality.

To call a text literary is to trust it will make sense eventually, even though it's quality of reference maybe complex, disturbed, unclear. It is a way of "saving the phenomena" of words that are out of the ordinary or bordering the nonsensical -- that have no stabilized reference.

...raised by Derrida's emphasis on writing as more than an extension of voice...it destroys the simplicity of voice.

写作可以被叫做“文学语言”，它不仅是语音语言的延伸，它打破了语音的简单性，打破了一种由周围环境构建出的幻象，不断地寻求用含糊不清的、变化着的参照物去描述变化的可能性。

Reference

[1] 以上引用框内容全部来自Geoffrey H.Hartman的《saving the text》：解读德里达结构主义（刚读了前言部分，阅读真的很难）

[2] Schizophyllum也描述过文本链接的感觉，在这里也引用他：https://mirror.xyz/0x65a0Af703047dfDd270361659d02f4f0E8547202/0MCv6uptaRhG6SswfRYawTr_DKJueKVZp6dAqnQursA