ways in which the textual play operates across and between the margins or borders of the page(s) and space(s) separating the columns. John Sturrock, reviewing the English translation of Glas for The New York Times, commented that "as a piece of writing it has no known genre". In his estimation reading the book is "a scandalously random experience" given the problem of how to read the two printed columns—consecutively or alternately from section to section. Though it is an "exuberantly clever, punning text", it "asks too much of one's patience and intelligence; our defense against a text declaring itself to be unreadable may be to call its author's bluff and simply leave it unread." Sturrock praises the English translation (by Richard Rand and John P. Leavey Jr.), but notes that a text such as Glas by definition cannot be translated and that Glas in English "mocks . . . the notion that translation achieves a semantic identity from one language to another." Sturrock's review was severely criticized in two responses: one writer reprimanded Sturrock for a "dismissive account", another pointed out that what Sturrock refers to as a "random experience" (of the text's format) is in fact reminiscent of the "sacred texts of Judaism". The English translation was praised by Ned Lukacher in Modern Language Notes as an "almost absolutely singular and exemplary achievement". Compellingly, Glas has often been cited as evidence that deconstruction might theorize hypertext or that hypertext might instantiate deconstruction. In the early 1990s, George Landow declared Derrida's radical book Glas should be understood as "digitalized, hypertextual Derrida", and MLA president J. Hillis Miller associated it with "the new multi-linear multimedia hypertext that is rapidly becoming the characteristic mode of expression both in culture and in the study of cultural forms". Whereas Mark Taylor argues that "deconstruction theorizes writerly practices that anticipate hypertexts", Geoffrey Bennington advises that if writing had a privileged empirical form for Derrida, it would be the computer—yet on the other hand, "hypertexts can just as well be presented as a fulfillment of a metaphysical view of writing". Gregory Ulmer argues that Derrida's writings "already reflect an internalization of the electronic media", and Mark Poster holds that "computer writing instantiates the play that deconstruction raises only as a corrective". Moreover, as scholars like Peter Krapp observed, both Ted Nelson's Computer Lib / Dream Machines and Derrida's Glas look astonishingly similar and argue parallel points.