I started reading Vernor Vinge’s 1981 novella True Names because it’s arguably one of the earliest cyberpunk stories, though it’s written before cyberpunk was an acknowledged genre. It turns out the protagonist is not only a “warlock” in the computer network but also one of world’s most feted electronic writers:

“I told you. He’s written more popular games than any three men and even more than some agencies. Roger Pollack is something of a genius.”

They’re novels, damn you, not games! Old irritation flashed unbidden into Roger’s mind. Aloud: “Yeah, but most of my fans aren’t as persistent as you all.”

“Most of your fans don’t know that you are a criminal, Mr. Pollack.” (242)

The Feds who threaten him don’t see Pollack as a warlock of course, to them he’s a vandal. A hacker, they’d say these days. His comrades go by names like Robin Hood and Erythrina and with their maniulations of the tax revenue they’re a greater threat to the government than any foreign enemy. While threatening to arrest Pollack, the the Feds also admit their admiration for his legitimate creative work:

“Your participation novels are the best in the world.” There was genuine admiration in his voice. One meets fans in the oddest places. (244)


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “participation novels

  1. Rorschach

    This is a really great story and what turned me on to Vinge in the first place.

    I think the story has a couple different messages. The participation novels that you mention are the main character’s “work” but aren’t really more than mentioned in passing and don’t really advance the plot. Sad considering such a ripe subject these days.

    “True Names” refers to knowing someone’s name in Real Life. If someone finds out your True Name you basically end up a thrall to them: they own you. As explained in the story this comes from old myths. This isn’t all that different than the hacker/cracker mentality today, thus the need for pseudonyms.

    The Feds — while not happy with him — need Pollack to help find and eliminate another threat, not knowing truly what that threat is. What they really want Pollack to do is find another hacker’s True Name. Not to give anything away, but The Mailman is simplay an avatar for the system, representing its interests. And like most government systems, the left hand doesn’t know what the right one is doing.

    Another cool thing about the story is the depiction that it’s the creative and artistic types that truly interface with and use the network. The government types are confined to a two-dimensional and flat representation.

    Written twenty-four years ago, it’s fantastic how closely Vernor Vinge saw the future.

    http://home.comcast.net/~kngjon/truename/truename.html

  2. Liz

    I had the pleasure of hearing Vernor Vinge speak at Pop!Tech in 2002. He’s delightful. I also approached him at the conference reception to tell him how much I enjoyed his work, and then bought a signed copy of True Names from the conference bookstore. (The edition that you seem to be reading, based on your sidebar…)

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.