<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Original but not essential.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A masterpiece
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: A masterpiece
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: flawed, but brilliant in its way
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Essential
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible translation!
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
