Caill-why

Forgive the pun, but I couldn’t help myself from just questioning the paths Caillois was taking in his book. The motivation (and a reasonable amount of the theory) behind much of what Man, Play and Games is fairly solid and admirable, but he just kept making seemingly arbitrary blunders in what he was trying to articulate or institute. Moving past Caillois’s initial definition of games and play, which I have the same issue as I did with Huizinga and last week’s other authors my main issue with Caillois is how he draws his distinction between relevant game elements.

Caillois’s initial distinction of his primary game elements (Agon/Competition, Alea/Chance, Mimicry/Simulation, and Ilinx/) are exceptionally arbitrary to me. I agree that these elements are both relevant and tangible, I sincerely disagree with there use as delineator’s between games. For instance, Competition and Chance are nearly inextricable due to the unforseeable nature of it’s results, so why separate games based off of there use of Competition or Chance as a device? Similarly, ‘Vertigo’ basically just means a sense of tension as a result of that same unforseeable component, which makes it seem even less valuable, but then he lumps in the actual physical sensation of vertigo as part of this, which further muddles his thesis. Meanwhile, Simulation is basically just an aesthetic element of games. Very few games actually emphasize the idea of being in a simulated experience as a part of the game itself; even table-top role playing games, which are perhaps the pinnacle of simulation, don’t actually emphasize the ACT of simulation as intrinsically important to the purpose and goals of the game itself, successful simulation simply enhances the experience. (However, this isn’t to say that simulation isn’t the main source of enjoyment for a player.)

His ideas are muddled further when he attempts to describe these elements in other aspects of society. His ideas about the corruption of these fundamental elements in the concept of ‘corruption’ are hugely disparate (comparing drug use, ambitions of power, superstition, and split personality disorder) and don’t create a clear through line for his ideas.

Ultimately, Caillois seems to follow in Huizinga’s, perhaps all to fitting, footsteps as being more relevant for furthering this study historically than providing valuable ideas to use in that study.

Leave a Reply