Joe Tabbi Appreciations

Ewan Branda (Interview, May 2025)

“I came on board via Anne Burdick, but I think one of the most valuable aspects of my work with ebr came through the collaborative dynamic with Joe. There was always a lot of discussion—more talk than programming, maybe—but that talk was valuable. Joe brought a really thoughtful editorial presence. I mean, the site often felt like an ‘object to think with.’ It wasn’t just about hosting essays—it was about building a kind of intellectual and aesthetic infrastructure that allowed for ongoing reflection and transformation.

Joe’s editorial acumen helped shape that. He had this ability to identify the moment—to see that we were all navigating uncertain terrain with digital media and publication. There wasn’t a template for what we were doing. A lot of it was exploratory. Joe facilitated those conversations, gave shape to them, and helped ensure that the technological shifts—like moving from static HTML to dynamic, database-driven platforms—didn’t just serve functionality, but expressed the philosophical and literary goals of the journal.

He also pushed against the prevailing norms of academic publishing. Back then, digital journals weren’t recognized for tenure or peer review. Joe and I talked a lot about that—how the web 2.0 ethos, with its constantly changing representations, conflicted with the stability that academia expected. That was a big challenge, and Joe was instrumental in framing the journal’s output as both innovative and intellectually rigorous, even if it didn’t fit neatly into institutional standards.”

Davin Heckman (Interview, May 2025)

“I met Joe around 2005 or 2006, early in my academic career. He was driving through Michigan on his way to New York, and we met up over tacos and talked about electronic literature. That informal meeting turned into a formative relationship. Joe brought me into the electronic literature database project at ELO, and not long after, I began editorial work with ebr. That changed everything for me.

Reading Joe’s work had already shaped my thinking—his openness to ideas, rather than credentials, was key. Joe’s editorial philosophy wasn’t about prestige or gatekeeping—it was about asking: ‘Do you have something interesting to say?’ That ethos permeated ebr and made it a site of intellectual incubation rather than just publication. He created a space where people could engage, develop, and grow. It was a genuine community of inquiry.

What’s remarkable is that ebr under Joe’s leadership was never about institutional validation. It was a network of individuals, of ideas. He empowered us. He told me to read Rob Wittig’s early barks [email announcements] and find my voice, and then let me loose to write the barks in my own style. That kind of editorial freedom is rare. It felt like being part of a university without walls, with Joe as this generous, intellectually curious figure who knew how to gather people, spot their strengths, and trust them to lead.

Honestly, I don’t think I’d be doing what I do now if it hadn’t been for Joe swinging by for tacos that day. That moment of openness shaped a career.”

Lori Emerson (Interview, May 2025)

“Meeting Joe was actually super transformative for me—not just for the intellectual and academic mentorship he provided, but for the freedom he gave me. I don’t know why exactly he entrusted me with so much responsibility at ebr, but I remember it starting modestly. I helped build the mailing list and sent out the monthly barks [email announcements], and before long, I was editing the electro-poetics thread.

Joe indulged me. He let me invite the people I admired most to stage dialogues, debates, and arguments—mostly about experimental poetry and writing in the digital. That space became crucial for my own intellectual development, but it also allowed me to network in a way that profoundly impacted my career. When I went on the job market in 2007, I had a strong support system and ebr as an example of what experimental scholarship and publishing could look like. It gave me a platform and a sense of belonging.

What Joe created with ebr is something rare—an open, supportive, emergent community. It never felt overly academic in the stultifying sense. It was rigorous and provocative, but never rigid. And Joe’s trust and generosity set the tone for all of it. He created a space where play and serious thought could coexist, and where you could grow by doing.”

Steve Tomasula (Interview, May 2025)

“One of my earliest memories is of Joe organizing these electronic readings at his loft on Division Street in Chicago—above a bodybuilding sports shop, no less. It was such a potent space. You’d go there and feel part of this eclectic, improvised literary scene. Those gigs, as Joe called them, were central (gig being a pun that probably only e-lit people got at the time, in that back then, a gig was a job that a musician got, and only early adopters would have known it as a big number for measuring file and memory sizes). It felt like the germination of what later became ebr and a whole community of electronic literature.

I remember being with Joe when he spoke to Ronald Sukenick, who had founded American Book Review. Joe asked him why he got into publishing, and Sukenick laughed, saying it was the last thing he wanted to do—but it had become necessary. That stuck with me. Sukenick didn’t want literature to be driven by advertising budgets and conglomerate logic. Joe took that ethos forward with ebr. He wasn’t trying to replicate print online. He was building an open, collective, creative platform where literature could still matter—where form and thought could evolve together.

That spirit of experimentation, of community—it’s what drew me in. Joe didn’t just create a journal; he created an art space. A site for design/writing. A place where visual language, hybrid forms, and digital poetics weren’t side projects, but central. He recognized early on that the medium is the message—and he built ebr to let writers and artists perform that truth.”

Lai-Tze Fan (Interview, May 2025) edited by LTF

“I’ve now worked with Joe for almost a decade, which surprises me—sometimes it feels like only a few years, and other times I realize it’s been a major part of ebr’s history too. I first encountered Joe through Davin Heckman, who was writing the newsletter back in 2017. Davin connected us, and I was thrilled—I had already been reading Joe’s work as a graduate student. His thinking on materiality and digital literature really influenced me. So when Davin suggested I take over the newsletter, it felt like a big and exciting step.

Joe was generous from the beginning. He didn’t just treat me as a volunteer—he brought me in as a contributor and eventually as a collaborator. And over time, I’ve come to think of him not only as a mentor but as a friend. We now work together at the University of Bergen.

Joe represents a kind of convivial scholarship. He cultivates community. He listens, he encourages. And with ebr, he’s created a journal that doesn’t just publish—it networks, it connects, it evolves. That’s what drew me in. And over time, that ethos has shaped my own thinking—especially my concept of the ‘historical intertext,’ which came from working with the ebr archives and realizing how many conversations were happening across decades. Joe nurtures those kinds of connections. He’s not only built a journal, but an intellectual and affective infrastructure that makes real thought possible.”

Rob Wittig (Interview, May 2025)

“I met Joe back in the mid-90s in Chicago, when a bunch of us started gathering for what we called the ‘electronic literature dinners’ at an Indian restaurant named Modi Mahal. Scott Rettberg brought Joe along to one of those early dinners, and immediately we found ourselves in deep conversation about electronic literature and digital publishing. Joe stood out. While the rest of us were doing fiction on bulletin boards, email novels, or experimenting with hypertext, Joe had this bold vision: a fully online academic journal that was serious, peer-reviewed, and committed to literature as a critical practice. It was audacious for the time.

What Joe brought—besides his incredible drive—was a rare openness to collaboration. He created a space where scholars and creators could sit at the same table, co-equals. That might sound obvious now, but back then it wasn’t. I come more from the creative side, and Joe helped me understand the academic world—tenure, peer review, all of it. He never made those boundaries into barriers. And he fought to get ebr recognized, even when the institutions didn’t understand what he was doing.

But even more than that, Joe valued design as much as writing. He and I shared this sense that what language looks like matters. He wasn’t just building a journal; he was building a stage for new forms of expression—where improvisation, scholarship, and aesthetic form could co-exist. That spirit of conviviality, of experimental supportiveness, is what’s kept ebr alive and meaningful.”

Will Luers (Interview, May 2025)

“When I became managing editor of ebr in 2018, I proposed to migrate the site to WordPress. My pitch to Joe was practical but also philosophical. I believed—and still do—that ebr should be a community-run platform, not one that relies on specialized backend knowledge. Joe understood that. He trusted me to lead the technical transition because he valued that spirit of openness. That’s something Joe fosters at every level. He’s not just a literary scholar or a digital editor—he’s someone who cares deeply about creating systems where people want to contribute, not out of obligation, but because they’re invested.

Working with with him on ebr was an intellectually enriching experience for me personally. After our editorial zoom meetings we would stay on to talk about McElroy, Gaddis and Pynchon. I’ve read a many of Joe’s books and have always been fascinated how he ties postmodern writers into electronic literature.

Joe has always been focused on conversation—on creating a space where scholarly and creative voices come together, and where editorial work is more about nurturing than gatekeeping. Under his leadership, ebr has never conformed to the rigid standards of academic publishing. It’s experimental, it’s accessible, and most importantly, it’s sustainable because it’s built on relationships and shared purpose. That’s Joe’s legacy—designing a structure that lasts because it invites people in.”

Tegan Pyke (Interview, May 2025)

“What I love about ebr is how it brings together so many distinct voices and points of view. Take the cyber debates, for instance. People were declaring hypertext dead at the same time others were insisting it was very much alive. That openness to contradiction, to different perspectives, is what defines ebr for me.

Working through the ebr archive has been transformative. There’s so much there—early discussions, experiments, overlooked voices. It’s like uncovering a whole layer of internet and literary history that I wasn’t aware of. And it’s deeply exciting. I found poetry published as articles, old hypertext essays using pop-ups and frames; designs that are nostalgic now but were radical then. You don’t see that kind of experimentation elsewhere.

The vision that Joe and those around him had made all this possible. They didn’t create a platform that asked everyone to conform. They built a journal that invited people to bring their own lens, their own voice. That’s rare. And the more I work with the archive, the more I see how intentional that was. That’s why I want to bring more people into ebr, especially from areas like game and fan studies. There’s space here for eclecticism, for complexity. That’s what drew me in.”