Oh man, this article was just a blast to read. Zimmerman went on basically what was a 6.5 page rant about how people are so obsessed with “[taking] down the oppressive regime of the magic circle.” I found it funny how he talks about graduate students being drawn to the idea of the magic circle and as their first big presentation/paper they just try to put it down and out.
I also found that when he jumps into Rules of Play, he looks at it from both sides and acknowledges how if you’re reading it from a sociological point of view, it probably will not hold much ground for you since it’s more from a disciplinary view on game design and help creators better create. Then even noting the flaw he has by reading articles through his own point of view and not agreeing with a sociological view.
Probably one of my favorite parts of this article was Zimmerman asking, “Could one think of almost any phyical or social space as a magic circle in this way?” Then the incredibly passive aggressive answer, “Probably – if that’s your cup of tea.” At least how I read it, I found that comment more or less a sarcastic, passive-aggressive way to answer that since his whole tone in this is similar to that -just to put down this argument.
All-in-all this was probably one of my favorite’s to read because it seems he is tired of his views being argued from the side that opposes his. I love how he says “there shouldn’t be a debate” even though, there is -since, I don’t know, it’s because people might have found flaws in Zimmerman’s theory or they just don’t agree with it? I feel like this is one of the topics that will probably always be looked at on both sides and will continuously be debated. However, I don’t feel a rant like this is necessary. Owning up to where some gray area might be and clarifying some of your ideas over time as more information emerges; something like the 7 summary notes he added at the very end would be sufficient. But, rants are always fun to read and this was a good one.
Game Studies 
I definitely agree with you. I appreciated Zimmerman’s sarcastic approach throughout the article. It felt like a breath of fresh air for me, too. I think he made some great points, but I also agree that it didn’t feel as necessary as some of the other readings. It would’ve been better if he used the same amount of pages to get out of rant mode, and use the last few pages to explain it more academically. But then again, I probably wouldn’t have appreciated it as much as I did while reading it.
Great post! You really set out everything Zimmerman discussed in a thorough way.
LikeLike
Yeah I think the whole article was very subtly funny and passive aggressive but it was refreshing to see the theorists and scholars themselves be aware of their critique’s and chopping it up to perspective. I think my favorite part in the article was when Zimmerman used the idea of people trying to de-credit his writings or the magic circle in general by creating imaginary enemies to then break them down. I will say that I disagree with the idea that this article may have been a rant only out of the idea that he did state at the beginning what it aimed to do, and while he did take aim at groups of people that disagreed with them, he still stayed on track to answering the questions he had posed at the beginning. But good post, I appreciated the perspective.
LikeLike