Zimmerman critiques the theoretical ‘jerk’ surrounding the ideas of the magical circle in his article. By jerk, Zimmerman refers to people, both directly in gaming fields and those who are not, to criticize the ideas and reality of the Magic Circle. Apparently it’s widely debated and discussed, even graduated students seem to make it a priority to pick a side of the “magic circle”. To be more specific, Zimmerman isn’t really saying there’s a magic circle jerk, he’s just saying there’s a lot of criticism and debates over the idea and just wants to “bury the bastard”.
Zimmerman writes this article without sounding angry or overly critical over the concepts his colleagues believe. The idea of the magic circle, is simply that just an idea. An idea that can be applied to “…any physical or social space…” as explained by our author. Differences lies in the point of view of the individual. The author uses examples such as a sociologist not gaining much insight on sociology from research on game studies. He explains that’s its not about the point or value of the research but rather want the individual can take away from it.
Just like the sociologist, the magic circle depends on what you take away from it. It both exists and doesn’t, it’s dependent on the understanding being sought. I suppose instead of worrying about what is or isn’t real about the magic circle, we understand our short-comings in our point of view to better help our own understanding of others.
Game Studies 
I actually found this reading pretty funny, specifically because it actually did sound like Zimmerman was pretty angry about all of the criticism about the magic circle. It’s written like he has been trying his hardest to sit quietly on the sidelines while everyone tears apart the magic circle, but he just couldn’t take it anymore and had to finally come out and denounce the criticism. I actually completely agree with him, though, and was surprised to finally find an article that synthesizes my exact ideas on the magic circle. I believe many theorists have a problem where they believe what they are writing with such conviction that they start to think and speak only in absolutes and extremes, which leads to too many restrictive theories. Zimmerman does a good job of giving validity to the magic circle under a broader umbrella than many of the other theorists from this semester.
LikeLike
This is very useful because it simplifies that the magic circle does not exist and it does at the same time because it can be applied to different situations. the magic circle is known to be a safe space that is free from outside knowledge but hat’s only true depending on how you’re looking at the concept of the magic circle.
LikeLike
The magic circle concept is so weird to me. Like I understand it being a “Safe space free of consequence” but all I can think is the consequence is time. You give up a lot of time to enjoy a good game.
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily believe that time is a consequence per say, it could be looked at that if maybe one isn’t enjoying the game but if you’re enjoying a game then I don’t see time as a consequence. I think with the magic circle, consequences mean some form of being free from negative effects that would happen in real life – take GTA for example: you’d probably be shot on the spot if you start shooting at police but in the game it just leads to more stars and more action.
LikeLike
I think the magic circle is one of those concepts that is just there that no one really knows about but is universally there. I can’t think of something to compare it to (maybe the big bang theory?). But, it’s one of those things that once you’re aware of it then as an individual you can start to recognize your own safe space in different aspects of your own life; so it can be transferred out of a video game world and just looked at in the world of play and what we know of play as.
LikeLike