The short paper deadline for Hypertext 2005 was just extended till June 16. Have you ever written a short paper? I love them. They’re perfect for when you never got time to write the longer paper you were thinking of, or when you blogged something cool but that probably wouldn’t really make a whole paper of its own, or if you’re just starting to think of an idea.

So you know I’m on the program committee. I’m co-chair for literary papers, that is papers about literary hypertext. George Landow’s chair for more general humanities papers. Mark Bernstein is chair for hypertexts, that is papers submitted as hypertexts, because yes, you can do that. Anders Fagerjord’s paper for the conference is written as a stretchtext, which is pretty damn cool. Look, here’s a list of the accepted full papers.

We’re going to put together a panel on blogs, and the program committee is thinking of maybe making blogs a theme or their own next year, if there seems to be enough interest. (It wasn’t even my idea!) Hypertext has a very rich history and I think it’d be great to combine the knowledge of that community with the knowledge of us bloggers.

So if you think you might like to come to Salzburg in September this year, send in a short paper! As a hypertext, if you like. Or as a 2-3 page standard paper (there’s a template with tiny fonts so really you can fit about 2000-2500 words in if you want). And ask me if you have any questions!


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]