I wonder whether it is true that "Points of entry frame the possibilities of all interpretation; they open up pathways for discovery even as they close off other venues and approaches. Entering into a thinker's work from a certain vantage point determines much about how an interpreter will frame her questions and follow her path of inquiry."

If two people have the same institutional point of entry --two academics studying a text, two students listening to a lecture about a text, two unconnected borrowers from a public library of a text -- it seems to me that there will be certain stylistic similarities between the trajectory of their interpretations of the text -- the students might read the text to answer questions about it on a class quiz, the academics might read it as a possible topic for a paper, the two library patrons might read it "rawly", without the state of the art critical paraphernalia of the academics, or -- derivatively, via the teacher -- the students. But the movement within the texts can vary quite a bit, and I am not sure if there isn't a "revenge" of the text on the framing interpretation -- a moment that is not controlled by the point of entry. Or at least, it strikes me that is the possibility that makes a text "textual".

Roger,
good points.I concur with you. Hegel would be a good example of widely divergent readings.

What I had in mind can be exemplifed by Heidegger's. You can enter his work at differnt points: Being and Time; the late work on poetry, technology, and Gelassenheit; or his explorations of the beginnings of the Western tradition in the Greeks. They are different Heideggers in a way.

A lot of movement in the text, as you would say?

We could do the same with Nietzsche.Or you can read Nietzsche from the viewpoint of the literary institution, the philosophy one, or the psychoanalytic one. His texts allow for these widely different readings eg. Klossowski and Heidegger