Bolter shows up in every bibliography on the subject I've come across, and I've seen plenty of them. But credit must also be given to two other major writers on the subject, George P. Landow and Richard Lanham.
Perhaps these three make up what should be called the first generation of theoretical writing on hypertext. Each comes from a background of English literature, each leans strongly toward "critical theory", each has tried to present his arguments not only on paper but on disk, and which you choose to quote seems more a function of which you got to know first than anything distinct that each of them may have to say.
And of course after these three, or perhaps interspersed with them,
numerous others have expressed similar
ideas, have contributed to the collective reservoir of knowledge on
the subject. Does a review of relevant literature gain in validity because
it quotes from numerous people who say the same thing? To a certain extent,
probably yes. After all, if the objective is to show that we know what
we're talking about, it makes sense to show that you're familiar with all
the relevant literature. But if the objective is to describe a particular
position, quoting from one should be enough. Perhaps also, in keeping with
the idea of the electronic text as described by these authors, the database
of relevant materials contains much more than any single reader will ever
choose to access, and I've simply chosen to access the parts that I feel
most comfortable with. Which is probably what almost everyone else does
as well.