Hypersimilarities between theories of similarities.

On the first written page of Landow's text, he writes of the similarities between his predecessors and contemporaries in the language that they used; those being words like web, network, link, and interwoven. Landow's theories are nothing different, he simply uses the word hypertext to make, that he seems to be an original point and articulation. Hypertext is the way he describes the flow of ideas, both in discourse and internal thought processing. The term, similar to a rhizome, is an infinitely interconnected web branching idea to idea. The differing principle between the two is that rhizome is distinctly non-centralized and hypertext can have centers of original thought that precede and influence further texts by sharing some “hypertext” between them. The critical theory of hypertext is required, according to Landow on page one, because it can generalize writing into a connected web of central ideas, they themselves centralized by core principles and writings. This critical theory would explore the roots of knowledge and show how diverse subjects branch off of similar core ideas.

They are similar ideas, really, with rhizome differing by advocating for a decentralized view of relation.

In terms of the metapicture, the same case will be found: that all these ideas are insanely similar because they're dealing with the same biological entity in the human brain, which is always involved in interpretation, regardless if one is reading an image as text or any combination of the sort of sensual and cognitive reasoning and connections. All these theories are, in a sense, connected by the same generalization they're trying to prove as being their own model, whether it be similarities caused by a similar metapicture shared between ideas, or a rhizome, or hypertext. This creates a similarities between the author's version of similarities, creating a metasingularity in the same tone as a metapicture.

As for Marxism, I don't believe so. All ideas aren't as applicable or thought out as others, as far as layman rhetoric goes. Giving merit to ideas should be based on exactly that: merit. Authorship, in the form of an author-function, exists for a reason, however, based upon their past work's consistency of quality.