Customer Reviews

Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Huizinga's genius is to find the idea of play hiding like a spider in the most unlikely places. The medieval "judicial duel", where justice was done by fighting? Clearly a development of ancient forms of combat - and that combat itself was always highly stylised and ritualised, which show, according to Huizinga, that they themselves were "play" forms. He demonstrates with convincing scholarship that Greek tragic drama and religion were also born from play.

The important thing for the reader to understand is that Huizinga does not think that play is in any way trivial or less than serious. In fact, he argues that play is a wider, more all-embracing concept than seriousness. Because the idea of seriousness excludes play, whereas the idea of play can very well be taken seriously. In the latter portion of his book, he laments the fact that play has been ripped from its organic place at the heart of communities and transferred to commercialized spheres of sport.

Contrary to what another reviewer says here, Huizinga was not writing in the 1950s but in 1938. A time when the old ideals of nobility and chivalry even in war had been exploded. A time when the very idea of play was something worth cherishing, something to attempt to preserve for a more fortunate future.

This is a masterpiece of deeply humanist historical and cultural analysis. If it annoys poststructuralists, well, its the poststructuralists who have the problems.

Steven Poole, author, Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution

Please be aware that this book really is a horrible translation of Huizinga's original and insightful attempts to make sense of 'play'.

Huizinga's contribution of the new word 'ludiek', introduced through his translations in almost every language but English, is simply left out of the introduction and does not occur in the book. This means that the logic Huizinga has set up, pointing out how cultural practices are characterized by 'ludieke' features (i.e. features of their game-like quality) gets reduced to a book on 'game elements'. The entire logic of play creating culture therefore never comes across, but stays obscured behind game elements in culture.

This translation should really be immediately taken from the market or redone by someone who actually tries his best to translate with integrity. An indication of the complete lack thereof is the note of the editor that he changed the subtitle from 'play element of culture' (which Huizinga in his introduction clarifies he fought for on several occassions to be maintained) into 'play element in culture', because "English prepositions are not governed by logic". The English-centricity complete overrules at least 90% of what Huizinga actually expresses.

Horrible.

I'm sure the translation is as poor as everyone says, but for God's sake, this is one of only three or four absolutely essential twentieth-century books on the history of games and gaming. It's insightful and humorous even in English, so just imagine how good it is in Dutch. Along with Murray, Bell, Conway, et al, this is a necessary assignment for anyone who wants to talk about the subject. Five stars. Five! Five! Five!

I am surprised that this book has garnered mixed reviews. I consider it the most important book about play, and I write that as the author of a number of books on game design.

Why is this book so important? First, it clearly differentiates between play and games; there is a great deal of play-activity that does not constitute game-playing. That differentiation is lost on many people. Second, it explores the concept of play from an astounding number of directions. The strongest analysis is the linguistic analysis, which considers how many different languages address the concept of play. The word "play" is one of the semantically broadest words in the English language. From terms such as 'gun play' to 'play' as a theatrical production to 'play' as the freedom of movement of a mechanical part to 'player' as a device that plays a recording, the notion of play has spread broadly and deeply into many different cultures, and the special emphases that different cultures place on the meaning of play itself reveals much about the concept. What we call a 'bastard' in English is a 'spielkind' in German: a "play-child". The Japanese language has an entire formal sublanguage for addressing certain sensitive topics. "I am sad to learn that your father is playing at being dead" would be a literal translation of this kind of language. What does that say about the concept of play in the human mind?

Huizinga offers many other brilliant insights into the nature of play in the human species. His observations on the idea of demarcating territory in which certain rules of play apply -- a royal court, a court of law, or a basketball court -- are eye-opening. We humans have a subjunctive sense that we explore with variations on play.

Also impressive is the range of angles he uses to zero in on the concept of play. He considers play in art, poetry, law, war, language, and play as a civilizing process. Play has become a substitute for direct violent conflict. We civilized humans deflect our bloodlust into athletic games. Imagine the emotional intensity of spectators applied to political conflict; we're tear ourselves to pieces!

Play is also immensely valuable as an educational process. The fact that all carnivorous mammals engage in play communicates the value of play in the upbringing of the young.

It's true that some of the material delves into topics now considered somewhat musty. I confess that sometimes I was happy to have put a chapter behind me. But the book is short and the tedious sections are quickly passed by.

I consider this book a must-read for anybody with serious interest in games and play. It is the classic work in the field, still more informative than any of the modern books on the subject -- including my own!

The search for the essence of our humanity has led thinkers to time and again single out one aspect of our complex nature. We are 'the talking creature' and we are the 'rational being' and we are 'the fabricator' and maker of worlds. We are the creature 'made in the image of God" and the only one capable of
'imitato dei'. And we are also 'homo ludens' the creature for whom play is at the essence of our being .
Huizinga may be too much of a generalist for many today, but he has a great perception and he elaborates and investigates it in an insightful way.
" If we cannot play we cannot begin to be fully human"

I don't know how anyone can read this book and think it is a terrible translation. This book was poetic and playful itself as it delved into the subject. I read it because it was recommended as the book on the subject by Robert Bellah in his compendious book entitled "Religion in Human Evolution." Well, Robert is correct, "Homo Ludens" is the authoritative read on the subject. And quite a fine example of writing too. Elegant, eloquent, and artful, though I did need to have a dictionary handy. Aain, how anyone can think the translation is of poor quality is beyond my understanding because of the vocabulary used. It is definately of high quality. This is one of those life-changing books that is hard to put down, and when it's over, you wish there's more. Play in its highest form for sure. Cheers... - lc

Huzinga sees the "play-instinct" as an instinct that emerged very early in human prehistory - in fact, he sees it as one of humanity's primary instincts, one which provides the fundament for other elements of society, such as religious ritual, war, and poetry. Huizinga believes this theory, and he could care less about convincing you: in many spots he just says "It is obvious that... [insert unfounded theory here]" and then he continues on. In a way, though, this is welcome - he's more interested in working with implications and extensions of his theory, and those are quite interesting.

Other bad news: Huizinga's writing in the earlier part of the twentieth century, and it shows: his sweeping generalizations about human culture are sure to annoy poststructuralist readers, and his sometimes-disdainful references to "savage" cultures are sure to annoy multiculturalists. All of this kept tempting me to put the book down for good - but every time I read a few more pages in I'd happen upon another interesting idea or strange fact. Huizinga's knowledge of the games and play-rituals of archaic cultures from all over the globe is genuinely encyclopedic - one minute he's talking about the root words for "play" in the Blackfoot Indian cultures, the next he's analyzing the way dice games manifest in the Mahabharata -and it's all fascinating. He may refer to other cultures as "savage," but his depictions of these cultures and how play fulfills an important role makes our own age appear sterile and joyless by contrast, a point picked up on and run with by the Situationist International, members of which loved this book.

Huizinga illustrates with numerous examples out of all sort of civilizations that culture first appears under the form of play. The first forms of culture are played. He finds his examples in as different fields as jurisdiction, art, poetry, battle ...
I agree that play was certainly influential or important for certain aspects of cultural life, but not for essential points like politics, exercise of power or distribution of wealth within a society.
This book is not in the same class as his other more known book 'The Autumn of the Middle Ages'.
He makes an important remark in his diatribe against Carl Schmitt, whom he reproaches his wrong point of view. Schmitt founds his jurisdictional work on the principle of 'friend-foe', in other words on war not on peace.

Huizinga's text on the nature of the play impulse in man and as a formative principle for culture is indeed interesting but suffers from the myopic view that can occur when one places too much importance on a single factor in humanity. While I approach this from a theological perspective, I think that it is true of any topic. Huizinga does not reduce man to merely a playing being but does indeed develop this tendency highly, giving it central importance to culture, something which is ultimately related to the cult of the people involved.

With respect to this, Huizinga views the cult as profoundly influenced by the play-impulse of man. While this definitely has truth in it and also binds his thesis of play and culture together by means of an intermediary of cult, it is incomplete insofar as it ascribes primacy to an impulse which is only part of the unifying drive of humanity. This lack of consideration of the importance of other aspects of man leads Huizinga to often wax passionately for some primordial period of joyful playfulness which was wholly amoral. Because of his combination of play and the agonal (something with which I partially agree, although not entirely), he provides fodder for relativistic views of the world which view power as the ultimate determining factor in human life instead of Truth, Justice, and Love.

With this negative assessment in mind, Homo Ludens does explore important relationships between the ludic and agonal principles in human action. By looking at these with respect to the whole of human culture, Huizinga sheds light on many varied aspects of play and its essential nature. Indeed, his understanding of the importance of agonal action allows him to more fully integrate play with culture and cultural entities such as mythology, art, and philosophy. Because of this very positive contribution to the understanding of the play impulse, I still recommend this text with the caveats stated above.