"I sincerely doubt that nonlinear argument even exists in a world dependent upon linear time and development", Darren Grem writes. Espen has voiced similar thoughts to me. It is not clear to him that hypertext works better than sequential formats for complex, structured argumentative texts, he said.
I have to agree, there are few examples proving hypertext arguments do work.
But reading conclusions for the structure lately, it is an obvious fact that most complex, structured, argumentative texts do not progress from premise to premise until a climactic conclusion. Quite the opposite. Main points are somewhere along the middle, then the whole thing sort of fades, and the conclusion is at best a well-rounded coda. When did you last read a conclusion that offered something new? To be fair, Espen's own book offers a new perspective in the last chapter, but not a synthesising new view, just another way of stating (more or less) the same.
Most arguments aren't linear, it seems. What is a line that has no end?
<< Previously in Surftrail:
The Structure of Conclusions
Next: >>
Spamfire tutorial