Zimmerman discusses an all-encompassing response to the active debate amongst the typical game studies community that aims to tear down the structure of the Magic Circle. I appreciated the clarification of the Magic Circle with his analogies with football, it was a good reminder as well as a great clarifier for understanding the subject. I also found it funny how he points out the right-of-passage that game studies majors appear to go through that virtually have them break down the Magic Circle within an undergrad or early graduate paper, which in itself is also a slight jab at those students ability to reach outside of their studies in becoming true scholars and theorists.
He furthers a lot of his argument by explaining Huizinga’s creation wasn’t completely formed when he manifested it and it really wasn’t until his book that it developed into what it is today (which admittedly is a bit self absorbed but we wont discuss that). But beyond that last bit I think it was also very humbling and reasonable for him to also call himself out on not being able to understand others point of views as he comes from the perspective of a designer which is in turn not going to play well into those that approach it from a sociologist.
One of the last interesting things he brought up, at least for me, was the idea of inventing the enemy, which is the entire theme of the paper. The “Magic Circle Jerk” (*ahem) is merely a manifestation of something that scholars seem to invent when they want to establish their points in dismantling the Magic Circle. Zimmerman puts it best when he says, “propping up invented straw men just so you can knock them over is a lazy way to do research”. And not only in the paper but in life I think that is a very true thing to live by.
Game Studies 