Late in March, I was surfing around the Nordic Council’s funding info when I noticed that Nordbok funds projects to further literatury projects in collaboration between the Nordic countries – and the deadline was the next day. Figuring I might as well have a go, I emailed electronic literature buddies in Denmark, Sweden and Finland and fired by their enthusiasm (“Great idea! We’re in!”) and assistence from both collaborators and colleagues, managed to write a grant application in time for the deadline. To my surprise, I discovered I really enjoyed it!

When I returned from my travels, there was a letter from Nordbok in my office inbox. Nordbok has decided to fund your project ELINOR – Elektronic litteratur i Norden / Electronic Literature in the Nordic countries with NOK 140 000. That’s about US$ 20,000, which is a wonderful start for a network to promote and encourage electronic literature in a region that has technology and literature but has not yet combined the two to a great extent.

What we’ll be doing? A website, of course, to showcase electronic literature created in the Nordic region. We also applied for money for two conferences or symposiums, a series of author tours and to write and distribute a leaflet about electronic literature for libraries across the region. We’ll have to see what we’re able to do on smaller budget but I’m hopeful that this initial funding will make it a lot easier for people to find other sources of financing for projects along the way. This funding is for promotion of literature, but I’d also like to connect it to research funding at some point. First, though, I want to help make electronic literature visible enough that at least the reading public realises that it exists!

My partners in starting up this endeavour are Raine Koskimaa in Finland, Patrik Svensson of HUMlab in Sweden, and from Denmark we have Lisbeth Klastrup and Susana Tosca in Copenhagen and S??ren Pold in Aarhus, and Thomas Brevik is our brilliant technolibrarian expert. We’ll be finding other people in our respective countries, and we’re also working with the well-established international Electronic Literature Organisation.

If you’d like to be involved, or know someone who should be involved, get in touch with me (jill dot walker at uib dot no) or with an ELINOR person in your own country – we’ll set the website up soon to make that easier.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Alvaro

    Congratulations, Jill. And good luck with the project

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.