It’s ages since I last read magic-tree.com, and I’m loving the way it merges the reader (me) with Afra, throwing me from textual position to textual position. In the sequence where Simon and Magalie find Afra’s website, I’m behind the computer screen looking out at them. A bit earlier, I was mirroring Afra, my click on the website causing her to click on the same thing, or perhaps even controlling her, rather as the ancient woman controls Aura, the young woman she’s created, in Fuentes’s novella. You see this a little in one of the first sequences in Magic-tree, where you read the description of how you find a box, in a book shop. When you move your mouse over the linked words “You shake it” the girl in the image does indeed shake the box. Clearly her movement is triggered by the movement of your mouse. In that merged movement (your mouse, her shake) she becomes your avatar, or perhaps rather your golem, a creature you controll as though by voodoo.

I’m mixing spheres of meaning quite shockingly.

magic-tree-box.jpg magic-tree-back.jpg

(..)

Later.

I read it all. And oh, the last section is disappointing. I love the way the story’s built up in the first sections, and the ways in which the reader is involved. The way I half-merge with Afra, that’s clever, and the instructions on the box (I was lucky, I signed up early enough to get the senso-virtual Free Gift) are wonderful. The idea of combining six pages of text that “magically” come out of your printer with interactive sections, animated text and webcam sequences is interesting and well executed.

Chapter three deteriorates a few pages into the printed out section though. The dialogue and decent writing of the first parts now becomes hurried summary where the idea of the business magic-tree.com being a kind of infectious organism is explained in boring detail rather than being suggested or shown as it is in part in the first sections. The promise of the user being drawn into the centre of things isn’t fulfilled, and it feels a lot like a well-begun project was too hastily wrapped up as a deadline approached. I suppose that in real life that often does happen, but it’s a pity.

Still, even with its stilted end, the first section of magic-tree.com is certainly interesting enough that I’d recommend you have a look at it. It’s unlike any electronic literature I’ve seen before. It’s not a huge time-investment: it takes about an hour to read, perhaps a little more. Yes, it’s definitely worth a look.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

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.