I’ve neglected following up on this, but as part of the EBR discussion on First Person, the whole ludology-narratology thing has reappeared. (We really need to start reminding each other “not to mention the war”.)
There’s an essay by Espen Aarseth, one by Markku Eskelinen, and reply by Stuart Moulthrop, Julian Kücklich.
Andrew Mactavish on it here. Julian Kücklich also has created a small game where ludologists try to put everything into ‘boxes’, and narratologists try to keep space ‘open’.
What surprises me is the apparent perception that ludology is against other disciplines, even possessing a “reluctance to interdisciplinary cooperation”. Of course nobody can claim to speak on behalf of “ludology”, but I don’t think anybody ever spoke against using any methods from other disciplines? The whole thing was always against simply putting games into a preexisting box called “narrative” and ignoring everything that didn’t fit.
In my view, ludology was always against “closing off” avenues for research and always for interdiscplinarity.
The strong anti-narrative thing (as in my M.A. thesis) came from the fact that this was the default humanities response to everything in the late 1990’s. Certainly at game studies conferences, things are not fortunately not like that anymore – hence Seth Gidden’s objection here – I just think that things looked differently in 2001 when the essay was written.
Here’s what I wrote in my small 2000 manifesto about the need for ludology:
But we need a separate theory of games. We need a theory that isn’t just interactive bits and pieces tacked on to narratology or dramaturgy. We lack a theoretical understanding of what games are and can, and how they relate to the narrative media such as the novel or the movie. We lack the tools to evaluate and place a computer game both historically and in relation to other games.
I have to say, I was about to write the exact same thing in the comments of that blog until I realized you had already made the point.
In my opinion the problem goes back to the first humanist scholars of computer games, such as Niesz and Holland (1984), who import words like fiction, plot, character and story without any self-critical examination of their appropriateness. I agree that if “ludology” means anything at all (I actually never use the word) it means a critique of sloppy uses of external theories to games. Since this critique is trivially true and hard to contest directly, we instead get a knee-jerk reaction which consists of a construction of “ludologists” that is rich in invective and poor on accurate representation of the opposition’s arguments.
A case in point is Kucklich’s comment in EBR, which hardly responds to anything in Eskelinen’s article. And when it tries to, it makes no sense: “The irony of Markku?s article lies the fact that in his zeal to rid himself of imaginary colonizers, he has become a colonizer himself. This becomes obvious when he claims that it “should be self-evident that we can?t apply print narratology [?] directly to computer games? (36)”
–Seriously, is it possible to disagree with Eskelinen’s point? Is it in any way unreasonable?
I happen to think that the general debate has been very useful, perhaps even constitutional, and that to regret it or worry about it is to misunderstand its function and the function of academic discourse. Harmonic agreement seldom leads to anywhere interesting, and “fiery debate” is much preferable to scholars who never engage the work of others, for whatever reason.
And of course I agree with Jesper that the idea that “ludologists” are against interdisciplinarity is absurd. But since it obviously can’t be documented, why worry about it? Blogs are fine wehicles for academic networking and cheerleading, but they (the present blog excepted, of course) often leave something to be desired in terms of scholarship.
I also happily agree that things have improved since the First Person essays were written (mine in the Summer of 2001), perhaps because of the “ludological” critique? Having argued against uncritical uses of humanist theories to digital media since 1990, I look forward to laying to rest this particular quest.
I think the new essays by Aarseth and Eskelinen are good because they repeat what’s been said with a chunk more history and refinement – maybe these essays should be rewritten every year to keep it fresh?
For me, Julian’s point about Markku is not about the “print-to-games” angle, but Markku’s use of ‘should be self-evident’. That’s colonial. That’s “not here, I live here.” The attitude was offensive, not the content, at least that’s how I read Julian’s comment.
However, some of the comments ensuing the original article aren’t “fiery debate”, they’re outright bullying. Is calling someone a child in any way fiery? Just seems burnt out to me.
Heh… you said wehicles.
Vell, I am not a native speaker, but much vorse, this blog doesn’t have a previee function!
Even if your sympathetic interpretation of J.K. is correct, it still doesn’t excuse a “response” which hardly responds to any of the points in the original article. What’s up with that?
And the point should be self-evident, shouldn’t it? A valid point made in strong language is still a valid point, and here the language wasn’t even all that strong. Btw, isn’t calling someone “burnt out” offensive as well?