Thanks to Scott at GrandTextAuto and to Maggie Green at the gamer blog Kotaku for the writeups of the World of Warcraft Reader. It’s exciting to see what people think of the book – actually, we still haven’t heard what any real readers think about it after having read it, so we’re rather looking forward to that. Eek.

I’m also proud to announce that our anthology is currently the #2 bestseller in Amazon.com’s Puzzles and Games/Reference section, second only to the Scrabble Dictionary. How’s that for success!!?

screenshot of WoW Reader in the Puzzles and Games/Reference category


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “second only to the scrabble dictionary

  1. Anne-Mette

    Congratulations! Really looking forward to reading the whole thing 🙂

  2. Trevor Dodge

    Congrats, Jill! Looking forward to getting my copy in the mail any day now.

    Shane Hinton and I recently launched a gaming podcast called First Wall Rebate that has an academic slant. We’re starting a book club and want to begin with The WoW Reader for our first discussion in late June/early July. I know you are currently on leave, but would you be interested in an exchange of some kind, either on the podcast (via Skype…), email, message board, etc? If so, would you kindly contact me and let me know? Feel free to contact me via the show blog at http://firstwallrebate.wordpress.com.

    Thank you in advance. Again, congratulations!!

  3. Linn

    My copy’s delayed by the airport strike! Hoping to dig my nose into it this weekend!

  4. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Hope your copy arrives soon now that the airport strike’s over, Linn! And Trevor, I’ll get in touch 🙂

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.