One of the difficulties could be that Hegel begins by inverting the prescribed order -- beginning with writing and progressing toward reading, a similar inversion would occur on the level of telos, beginning with the Deed and then the Intention, as if the ends could precede the means. The End must be immanent (already written) in the intention. The code must predate any messages. Maybe there is a link between his fear of writing and his preference for lecturing. Hegel doesn't want to make the movement static by solidifying thought into a written language that would then stand for itself and by itself as skeletal print rather than active fluidity -- he wants to think the ink will never dry. He begins in "sense-certainty" with what it "means" to write, so that one must first grasp this problematic process even before opening up the question of reading and interpretation. By pointing to writing, Hegel directly (& indirectly) states that the writer's meaning (intention) and the meaning of writing is primary, even if his intention ends up becoming the reverse of what he thinks he means. Therefore, the consideration of a correct interpretation is always secondary to an actual leap into the system of discourse in the first place. In other words, one must first know what it means to say anything before one is able to mean anything; one must know how to write before one is truly able to "read."