I’m writing an encyclopedia entry on email novels for a guide to digital textuality and came across one that was new-to-me: Mo Fanning’s Place Their Face, the 2007 story of Lisa Doyle, a single, slightly desperate woman looking for love, whose email inbox is open for readers to explore. Because I wanted to enter it into the ELMCIP Electronic Literature Knowledge Base, I searched around for Mo Fanning and discovered he published a later version of Place Their Face as a print novel in 2008. I checked Google Scholar to see if anyone had cited the email novel (I don’t think so) and discovered this lovely patent for a reading lounge chair where readers lying on their stomach may “place their face” in a hole through which the book or magazine may be seen.

I’m not sure yet why the email novel is titled “Place Their Face”. But if I were still updating my list of email narratives (anno 2004) I would add this story to the list.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “Place Their Face

  1. Laura Santini

    Dear Jill Walker,
    hope this is not bothering you. In the last years, I’ve been drawn to experience some early examples of digital email novels, but have not been able to get to “Kind of Blue” as all links are either taking me to an error page or re-direct me to Nottingham Trent University.
    Would you be so kind to provide a URL where I can read Rettberg’s novel – I would have asked him but could not find his email address.
    Thanks
    Kind Regards
    laura

    1. Jill

      Hi Laura! Yes, it’s online on Scott’s website: http://retts.net/kindofblue/. I see the link from his website is broken – I’ll tell him to update that!

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.