What do you think?
Rate this book
The Grasshopper - Third Edition: Games, Life and Utopia
In the mid twentieth century the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein famously asserted that games are indefinable; there are no common threads that link them all. “Nonsense,” said the sensible Bernard “playing a game is a voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.” The short book Suits wrote demonstrating precisely that is as playful as it is insightful, as stimulating as it is delightful. Through the jocular voice of Aesop's Grasshopper, a “shiftless but thoughtful practitioner of applied entomology,” Suits not only argues that games can be meaningfully defined; he also suggests that playing games is a central part of the ideal of human existence, and so games belong at the heart of any vision of Utopia.
This new edition of The Grasshopper includes illustrations from Frank Newfeld created for the book’s original publication, as well as an introduction by Thomas Hurka and a new appendix on the meaning of ‘play.’
This new edition of The Grasshopper includes illustrations from Frank Newfeld created for the book’s original publication, as well as an introduction by Thomas Hurka and a new appendix on the meaning of ‘play.’
295 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1978
81 people are currently reading
2492 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
March 9, 2016
Great, great little book this is.
First, I love the Socratic dialogue as a tool for opening and widening ideas. It is not only great as a method of presentation, I find, but as a method of doing "philosophy" in general, and not only for Socrates and Plato, but even for humble beings like myself. I find that this is a really great tool for me to test one's own convictions. In the absence of people to converse and challenge me, I often find myself in an internal, imagined dialogue: Without answering to potential objections from others -imagined, written on in actual conversation- the mind cannot "stretch" and withdraws to a rigid, defensive state. The dialogue -and the implied way of doing "communicative/collective philosophy"- may be the only tool available that takes ideas to their logical conclusion and fulfillment (always temporary that fulfillment may be). In this age of monologues, hard convictions, and in which everyone has urgent needs to talk but feels no need to listen -hence no one is really listening- I feel that the Socratic dialogue is a gem to be rediscovered.
So, kudos to two of the wisest philosophers ever lived, Socrates and Plato... and then to Suits for bringing them back to our times.
Then, the content: Most of the book rests on building a "definition" of the game. That may sound very dry and boring, but embedded in dialogue and fairy-tale-like playfulness, it becomes what it truly is: a fun, playful inquiry into the nature of what we call a "game," in other words, an attempt to understand what a "game" really is. The book, I believe, greatly succeeds in this regard. People who are interested in the philosophy of games, such as fans of Huizinga and related thinkers, will find great food for thought in here.
The last section on "Utopia" could have been articulated much better, but the message gets across: We need an ethic of "work" that rests not on painful sacrifice, but on our internal convictions, emotions and drives, from our "ideals of existence". I believe that this is possible, and I believe it is possible even without the very ideal conditions presented by Suits at this last section. It is possible to turn life itself into a giant and continuous game, it is possible to "live like play" without giving up neither realism nor security -this is to say, while fulfilling basic human material needs at the same time-. To those who are quick to deem this horizon "impossible," I would respond that "the impossible" is a widely circulated ideology on its own. I have much to say on this, but this is not the place.
In short, great book with very few shortcomings.
First, I love the Socratic dialogue as a tool for opening and widening ideas. It is not only great as a method of presentation, I find, but as a method of doing "philosophy" in general, and not only for Socrates and Plato, but even for humble beings like myself. I find that this is a really great tool for me to test one's own convictions. In the absence of people to converse and challenge me, I often find myself in an internal, imagined dialogue: Without answering to potential objections from others -imagined, written on in actual conversation- the mind cannot "stretch" and withdraws to a rigid, defensive state. The dialogue -and the implied way of doing "communicative/collective philosophy"- may be the only tool available that takes ideas to their logical conclusion and fulfillment (always temporary that fulfillment may be). In this age of monologues, hard convictions, and in which everyone has urgent needs to talk but feels no need to listen -hence no one is really listening- I feel that the Socratic dialogue is a gem to be rediscovered.
So, kudos to two of the wisest philosophers ever lived, Socrates and Plato... and then to Suits for bringing them back to our times.
Then, the content: Most of the book rests on building a "definition" of the game. That may sound very dry and boring, but embedded in dialogue and fairy-tale-like playfulness, it becomes what it truly is: a fun, playful inquiry into the nature of what we call a "game," in other words, an attempt to understand what a "game" really is. The book, I believe, greatly succeeds in this regard. People who are interested in the philosophy of games, such as fans of Huizinga and related thinkers, will find great food for thought in here.
The last section on "Utopia" could have been articulated much better, but the message gets across: We need an ethic of "work" that rests not on painful sacrifice, but on our internal convictions, emotions and drives, from our "ideals of existence". I believe that this is possible, and I believe it is possible even without the very ideal conditions presented by Suits at this last section. It is possible to turn life itself into a giant and continuous game, it is possible to "live like play" without giving up neither realism nor security -this is to say, while fulfilling basic human material needs at the same time-. To those who are quick to deem this horizon "impossible," I would respond that "the impossible" is a widely circulated ideology on its own. I have much to say on this, but this is not the place.
In short, great book with very few shortcomings.
January 1, 2009
Wittgenstein's idea that there is no single feature shared by all (or even most) of the objects we call "games" is very disturbing. Worse, he said we could understand any specific meaning of the word "game" only within a particular "game". This intentionally confusing idea is here challenged by Bernard Suits in a deceptively intelligent, witty, even revolutionary book.
March 22, 2022
Uno de los mejores libros filosóficos que he leído, sin duda alguna. El razonamiento es sutil y muy cuidadoso. La propuesta es radical y atrevida. Es muy entretenido y va al corazón de las cosas. La forma es una delicia: una conversación entre animales sobre el sentido último de la vida. Está todo en su lugar. Creo que no ha recibido el reconocimiento que merece.
April 29, 2015
In one of the appendices, Suits quotes a line from a review of his book in The Ottawa citizen that he claims 'set my teeth on edge': "a pleasing, unusual book with an odd texture--something like a sandwich of gravel and jam." Oddly enough, I think this criticism more or less hits the mark. The jam is the overly jokey/corny structure, the gravel is the indigestible and didactic logic embedded throughout. Maybe less like a gravel and jam sandwich and more like a box of Monty Python chocolates:
P: What's this one: 'spring surprise'?
M: Ah - now, that's our speciality - covered with darkest creamy chocolate. When you pop it into your mouth, steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks.
P: Well where's the pleasure in that? If people place a nice chocky in their mouth, they don't want their cheeks pierced.
In the introduction, The Grasshopper is compared to Plato's dialogues, and yes, the book is largely structured as a series of dialogues. But whereas reading Plato's dialogues spawned a lifelong interest in philosophy, I fear that early exposure to The Grasshopper might well have extinguished it.
P: What's this one: 'spring surprise'?
M: Ah - now, that's our speciality - covered with darkest creamy chocolate. When you pop it into your mouth, steel bolts spring out and plunge straight through both cheeks.
P: Well where's the pleasure in that? If people place a nice chocky in their mouth, they don't want their cheeks pierced.
In the introduction, The Grasshopper is compared to Plato's dialogues, and yes, the book is largely structured as a series of dialogues. But whereas reading Plato's dialogues spawned a lifelong interest in philosophy, I fear that early exposure to The Grasshopper might well have extinguished it.
Read
August 12, 2023Okay, sitting at an airport waiting to uproot my whole life, seems like a good time to write this review! It’s a book about (philosophically defined) games (and thus, contains the philosophical work of trying to come up with and defend a definition of games).
As far as the style, it tries to be a lighthearted and accessible book (somewhat rare within the discipline) by framing the discussions within fictional narratives told by fictional characters. But the writing style was still very much that of analytical philosophy. I almost wish the appendices weren’t actually appendices because 1 the issues raised there were some of my favs in the book and 2 it reflected a more tRaDiTioNaL style (so there was no tension between the telling and the content, like I felt there was with the Grasshopper/Skepticus dialogue (also why even have the Prudence character, her whole role seemed to just be not understanding but not even in the inquisitive way Skepticus existed just simply Not Getting It and for that to be your only female entity…but I digress)). I appreciated the homage to the Platonic dialogues and Socratic discussions, and I love when philosophy tries to not be pretentious and stuffy, but the dialogue was still pretty formal so the narrative component felt forced and almost silly sometimes if not contradictory/hypocritical (given the attempt at accessibility). Granted, this didn’t detract from the quality of the thoughts. Just didn’t love the choice or its execution. But maybe for those not already intending to devote an exorbitant amount of time and energy to the study of philosophy within the academic institution, it’s more palatable. I certainly hope this is the case.
Some specific reactions to the arguments themselves: after outlining his definition of games, Suits argues that it both includes some things not traditionally called games, and that it excludes some things that commonly are. This is anecdotal so take with a grain of salt, but his exemplar in the latter category is Ring Around the Rosie, and I have never heard that called a game until now. He likens it to Swan Lake/other “choreographed performances” (which are not games). But he also has a whole section on open games that are games despite involving role-playing/performing in a sense, and as a dancer/performer I think his arguments for excluding something like Swan Lake/other choreographed pieces might just be due to a lack of experience himself. Open games rely on a kind of script wherein the specific actions and outcomes aren’t necessarily determined, compared to performances which he seems to think are. But to a performer, even if choreography is set or lines are set, each time IS different and might be more akin to a loose script that is restructured, reinvented, and/or newly reinterpreted each time it’s performed. And the goal has less to do with executing movements and more to do with having an effect on the audience. So the outcome isn’t certain. I’m not quite sure where to draw the line then, between open games and non-game performances.
This raises some other questions about his separation between games and arts in Utopia (where the former are/would/should be pursued, but not the latter), and then also between games and art and knowledge acquisition (e.g. scientific or philosophical research). Why is he discounting embodied knowledge/practice as a kind of knowledge? Also in the Utopia section, I’m not swayed by the quick claims regarding what would and wouldn’t be valued, like sex and again (more importantly) art.
Overall most of my criticisms have to do with things that are probably just beyond the scope of what Suits was doing here, or with personal preferences about style and delivery. All in all I think it’s philosophically rich as well as (relatively) accessible. Philosophers entrenched in academia can find plenty within it, as can people who are interested knowledge-seekers in their own right, and it can serve not only as a great introduction to the book’s specific content regarding games, but also a great introduction to the work that philosophy aims at/consists of.
As far as the style, it tries to be a lighthearted and accessible book (somewhat rare within the discipline) by framing the discussions within fictional narratives told by fictional characters. But the writing style was still very much that of analytical philosophy. I almost wish the appendices weren’t actually appendices because 1 the issues raised there were some of my favs in the book and 2 it reflected a more tRaDiTioNaL style (so there was no tension between the telling and the content, like I felt there was with the Grasshopper/Skepticus dialogue (also why even have the Prudence character, her whole role seemed to just be not understanding but not even in the inquisitive way Skepticus existed just simply Not Getting It and for that to be your only female entity…but I digress)). I appreciated the homage to the Platonic dialogues and Socratic discussions, and I love when philosophy tries to not be pretentious and stuffy, but the dialogue was still pretty formal so the narrative component felt forced and almost silly sometimes if not contradictory/hypocritical (given the attempt at accessibility). Granted, this didn’t detract from the quality of the thoughts. Just didn’t love the choice or its execution. But maybe for those not already intending to devote an exorbitant amount of time and energy to the study of philosophy within the academic institution, it’s more palatable. I certainly hope this is the case.
Some specific reactions to the arguments themselves: after outlining his definition of games, Suits argues that it both includes some things not traditionally called games, and that it excludes some things that commonly are. This is anecdotal so take with a grain of salt, but his exemplar in the latter category is Ring Around the Rosie, and I have never heard that called a game until now. He likens it to Swan Lake/other “choreographed performances” (which are not games). But he also has a whole section on open games that are games despite involving role-playing/performing in a sense, and as a dancer/performer I think his arguments for excluding something like Swan Lake/other choreographed pieces might just be due to a lack of experience himself. Open games rely on a kind of script wherein the specific actions and outcomes aren’t necessarily determined, compared to performances which he seems to think are. But to a performer, even if choreography is set or lines are set, each time IS different and might be more akin to a loose script that is restructured, reinvented, and/or newly reinterpreted each time it’s performed. And the goal has less to do with executing movements and more to do with having an effect on the audience. So the outcome isn’t certain. I’m not quite sure where to draw the line then, between open games and non-game performances.
This raises some other questions about his separation between games and arts in Utopia (where the former are/would/should be pursued, but not the latter), and then also between games and art and knowledge acquisition (e.g. scientific or philosophical research). Why is he discounting embodied knowledge/practice as a kind of knowledge? Also in the Utopia section, I’m not swayed by the quick claims regarding what would and wouldn’t be valued, like sex and again (more importantly) art.
Overall most of my criticisms have to do with things that are probably just beyond the scope of what Suits was doing here, or with personal preferences about style and delivery. All in all I think it’s philosophically rich as well as (relatively) accessible. Philosophers entrenched in academia can find plenty within it, as can people who are interested knowledge-seekers in their own right, and it can serve not only as a great introduction to the book’s specific content regarding games, but also a great introduction to the work that philosophy aims at/consists of.
June 9, 2025
This is great fun philosophy written in a Socratic tradition. Suits' titular Grashopper presents a theory about what consitutes a "Game", which takes up most of the book. The last chapter of the book presents a pseudo-Marxist analysis of the meaning of life, based on his account of Games.
Suits' account of Games is generally accepted and has generated a lot of discussion in the field of philosophy of sports. However, that discussion is very much academic, while this book is much more literal and could be read by someone with very little previous understanding of philosophy whatsoever. It could be a very nice Sunday leisure read.
Suits' account of Games is generally accepted and has generated a lot of discussion in the field of philosophy of sports. However, that discussion is very much academic, while this book is much more literal and could be read by someone with very little previous understanding of philosophy whatsoever. It could be a very nice Sunday leisure read.
September 6, 2024
بدون دوستم امکان نداشت چیزی از این بفهمم.
کتابیه که باید سر هر جملهش فکر کنید و اگر نمیخواید درمورد بازی ها بدونید نخونینش!
کتابیه که باید سر هر جملهش فکر کنید و اگر نمیخواید درمورد بازی ها بدونید نخونینش!
October 25, 2007
The original publication is an especially beautiful book, with a striking illustration by Frank Newfeld at the outset of each chapter. I haven't come across the new printing, but it would be a real shame if the illustrations were missing.
The book is a dialogue on the meaning of games and the potential for play to stand as the basis for a valid and principled ethos. The discussion is between a kind of guru of leisure, based cleverly on the character of the profligate grasshopper from Aesop's fable, and his disciples, Skepticus and Prudence. Knowing that he is not long for this world, the teacher makes sure to leave his students with a few puzzles to resolve for themselves. I've read it several times over the past few years, and always found it engaging.
The book is a dialogue on the meaning of games and the potential for play to stand as the basis for a valid and principled ethos. The discussion is between a kind of guru of leisure, based cleverly on the character of the profligate grasshopper from Aesop's fable, and his disciples, Skepticus and Prudence. Knowing that he is not long for this world, the teacher makes sure to leave his students with a few puzzles to resolve for themselves. I've read it several times over the past few years, and always found it engaging.
February 7, 2019
I loved the way he used the story of the grasshoppper to trick the reader into learning about philosophy and thinking in the socratic method without blantantly defining these terms. It challenged the way I thought about how to live life itself and what it means to view life as a game. I had never thought of it in this way until reading this book.
December 30, 2021
At times tedious, hilarious, and pretentious, Bernard Suits is a treat to read. Aside from the value of the definition it lays out, Grasshopper is a rare book for being as instructive in form as in content. Suits practices philosophy that is rigorous yet parabolic, leaving much for the reader to play with on their own.
February 15, 2025
The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia by Bernard Suits stands as a monumental work not only within the niche of philosophy of sport and games but also as a seminal text in broader philosophical discourse. Here’s why this book deserves your time and attention:
Canonical Status in Philosophy of Sport and Games:
Originality and Depth: Suits' exploration of what it means to play a game, encapsulated in his definition of games as "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles," has become foundational. His work has not just defined but has also invigorated the academic study of games, providing both a philosophical framework and a vocabulary that continues to shape discussions.
Academic Influence: It's not an overstatement to say that Suits' book is the cornerstone of the philosophy of sport. Universities around the world include it in their curricula, and it's often cited in scholarly articles, dissertations, and books on related topics.
Impact on Utopian Studies, Work Studies, and Leisure Studies:
Utopian Studies: Suits' discussion on the utopian aspects of games—envisioning a world where the act of playing could be the ultimate aim of human existence—has seeded numerous discussions on the nature of utopia itself. His ideas provoke thought on how we might structure society to maximize freedom and happiness through play.
Work and Leisure Studies: The book challenges conventional distinctions between work and leisure, suggesting that the essence of human activity might be more akin to play than to either work or idle leisure. This has profound implications for how we think about, organize, and engage in our daily activities, influencing both theoretical and applied research in these fields.
As an Introduction to Philosophy:
Engaging Narrative: Suits cleverly frames his philosophical inquiry within the narrative of Aesop's fable of the grasshopper and the ant, making complex philosophical ideas accessible and engaging. This storytelling approach serves as an excellent entry point into philosophy for those who might find traditional texts daunting.
Thought Experiments: The book is rich with thought experiments that invite readers to ponder life’s big questions through the lens of games. This method not only simplifies philosophy but also demonstrates its relevance to everyday life, making The Grasshopper a fantastic tool for teaching philosophy.
Broad Appeal: Despite its profound insights, the text maintains a conversational tone, which is rare in philosophical works. This accessibility broadens its appeal, making it suitable for students, educators, philosophers, and anyone curious about the deeper meanings of human activities.
In conclusion, The Grasshopper is not merely a book about games but a profound exploration of life, work, and the pursuit of happiness. Suits has crafted a text that is both a joy to read and a critical piece of philosophical literature. Whether you're a seasoned philosopher or a newcomer, this book offers layers of understanding that grow richer with each read. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in how we construct meaning through play, in our lives and in our societies.
Canonical Status in Philosophy of Sport and Games:
Originality and Depth: Suits' exploration of what it means to play a game, encapsulated in his definition of games as "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles," has become foundational. His work has not just defined but has also invigorated the academic study of games, providing both a philosophical framework and a vocabulary that continues to shape discussions.
Academic Influence: It's not an overstatement to say that Suits' book is the cornerstone of the philosophy of sport. Universities around the world include it in their curricula, and it's often cited in scholarly articles, dissertations, and books on related topics.
Impact on Utopian Studies, Work Studies, and Leisure Studies:
Utopian Studies: Suits' discussion on the utopian aspects of games—envisioning a world where the act of playing could be the ultimate aim of human existence—has seeded numerous discussions on the nature of utopia itself. His ideas provoke thought on how we might structure society to maximize freedom and happiness through play.
Work and Leisure Studies: The book challenges conventional distinctions between work and leisure, suggesting that the essence of human activity might be more akin to play than to either work or idle leisure. This has profound implications for how we think about, organize, and engage in our daily activities, influencing both theoretical and applied research in these fields.
As an Introduction to Philosophy:
Engaging Narrative: Suits cleverly frames his philosophical inquiry within the narrative of Aesop's fable of the grasshopper and the ant, making complex philosophical ideas accessible and engaging. This storytelling approach serves as an excellent entry point into philosophy for those who might find traditional texts daunting.
Thought Experiments: The book is rich with thought experiments that invite readers to ponder life’s big questions through the lens of games. This method not only simplifies philosophy but also demonstrates its relevance to everyday life, making The Grasshopper a fantastic tool for teaching philosophy.
Broad Appeal: Despite its profound insights, the text maintains a conversational tone, which is rare in philosophical works. This accessibility broadens its appeal, making it suitable for students, educators, philosophers, and anyone curious about the deeper meanings of human activities.
In conclusion, The Grasshopper is not merely a book about games but a profound exploration of life, work, and the pursuit of happiness. Suits has crafted a text that is both a joy to read and a critical piece of philosophical literature. Whether you're a seasoned philosopher or a newcomer, this book offers layers of understanding that grow richer with each read. It’s a must-read for anyone interested in how we construct meaning through play, in our lives and in our societies.
October 16, 2013
This book is simultaneously strange and very engaging. An interesting insight into game theory and the definition of a game. The premiss is quite unique.
Suits definition of a game is helpful in game studies. His focus in this book was to define a game and then use a series of 'but what about' or 'what if' scenarios to strengthen his initial definition. The unexpected and most curious part of this book is the entire text is a conversation between two ants and a dying grasshopper. Once you recover from this basic scenario, I think you will find the logic sound and the reasoning behind the game theory very solid. It is well written, well edited and the arguments are convincing.
Suits definition of a game is helpful in game studies. His focus in this book was to define a game and then use a series of 'but what about' or 'what if' scenarios to strengthen his initial definition. The unexpected and most curious part of this book is the entire text is a conversation between two ants and a dying grasshopper. Once you recover from this basic scenario, I think you will find the logic sound and the reasoning behind the game theory very solid. It is well written, well edited and the arguments are convincing.
September 9, 2019
of the greatest philosophical works i’ve read; humorous and approachable, as accessible to the discipline’s neophytes as it is rigorous for its veterans, to everyone’s benefit. too bad it isn’t more widely circulated.
June 11, 2023
Wittgenstein said that there is no definition of a game that works for all games without including other activities that are not games. There is merely a family resemblance between certain activities that are kind of fun.
This book argues that, actually, there is a definition that works for all games. “A game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles". It’s written in the style of a Socratic dialog with the pro-argument defended by the Grasshopper, and opposed by the Ant - characters from an Aesop’s fable.
It’s serious philosophy written in a playful style but it does start to drag after a bit.
This book argues that, actually, there is a definition that works for all games. “A game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles". It’s written in the style of a Socratic dialog with the pro-argument defended by the Grasshopper, and opposed by the Ant - characters from an Aesop’s fable.
It’s serious philosophy written in a playful style but it does start to drag after a bit.
March 31, 2023
Even though this book had interesting concepts and I loved the last chapter, it was such a torment and a pain to read. For some reason, the writing style really didn't go well with me and it overcomplicated sentences and whole parts of the book where it really could've been explained in an easier manner. I believe it is a valuable and insightful reading nonetheless, and i believe my problem with it is more of a reader's preference.
Read
June 6, 2023اخلاقیات فقط تا آنجا مطرح است که آرمان هنوز تحقق نیافته باشد، ولی در خودِ آرمان هیچ جایی برای اخلاقیات نیست، درست همانگونه که انقلاب در خودِ آرمانی که کنش انقلابی را برمیانگیزد جایی ندارد.
.
موفقیت چیزی است که باید به سوی آن شتافت، نه اینکه با آن زندگی کرد.
بعضی مطالب کتاب تکرار داشت.
.
موفقیت چیزی است که باید به سوی آن شتافت، نه اینکه با آن زندگی کرد.
بعضی مطالب کتاب تکرار داشت.
Read
August 9, 2017Aslında kitap izlemesi zevkli bir tartışma şeklinde ilerliyor ama ilgim başka yöne kaydığı için son iki bölümü okumak üzere elime alman hayli uzun sürdü.
October 24, 2021
I need to reread it.
August 26, 2022
Okay, finished this (The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia, by Bernard Suits).
Very interesting! It doesn't quite stick the landing, though. The discussion of utopia is especially lacking. Let's discuss its strengths and shortcomings.
Overall, the definition of games and gaming given in the text seems serviceable at least, and Suits does a good job going through relevant counterexamples, and possible false positives and false negatives his definition produces.
My motivations going into this is a desire to explore deep structural relations between gaming, art, music, and psychosexual dynamics, up to and including sexual acts. It stands to figure that, in a post-scarcity post-conflict utopian civilization, life would consist mostly of games, art, music, celebration, and sexuality.
But Suits is so invested in disavowing the connections between games and other psychological and experiential modes, I worry that he seems fundamentally to misinterpret basic elements of reality.
So for Suits, in this utopia, there wouldn't actually be an emphasis on art or sex. The argument is basically, "No struggle, no good art! No war, no good sex!" which is rhetorically tired. It also, honestly, has fascistic resonances.
To give a quote:
"The obsessive popularity that sex has always enjoyed is, I suspect, inseparably bound up with man's non-Utopian condition. Sex, as we have come to know and love it, is part and parcel with repression, guilt, naughtiness, domination and submission, liberation, rebellion, sadism and masochism, romance, and theology. But none of these things has a place in Utopia. Therefore, we ought at least to face the possibility that with the removal of all of these constituents of sex as we value it, there will be little left but a pleasant sensation in the loins - or wherever."
And there are even more dubious claims to this effect that I won't be quoting.
Likewise, consider the argument about art in an utopian society:
"Art has a subject matter which consists in the actions and passions of men: with human aspirations and frustrations, hopes and fears, triumphs and tragedies, with flaws of character, moral dilemmas, joy and sorrow. But it would seem that none of these necessary ingredients of art could exist in Utopia."
Suits seems to be worried basically that, since games are artificial contrivances, people who send their lives gaming will ultimately come to think that their lives are fake and meaningless. But there's really no reason to suppose this.
In fact, empirically, one can observe even in our own society that the abstraction of gaming tends often to cause people to take gaming more seriously than everyday struggles. Abstraction creates, and is, holiness, sacredness. A utopian world would be 100% sacred. Everything would shimmer.
Life devoid of struggle would be like Aristotle's thought devoid of slave labor: it would be better. People could put their whole souls into the experience. Everything would be intensified, as well, if death were impossible. If people wanted it, the "gloves could come off," etc.
Gaming, art, and sexuality in a utopian society would be literal godliness. I have absolutely no doubt that people would find meaning in it. The experience of pure leisure would reach a fervor and intensity that we could hardly even fathom.
Our world is trash! Our order is garbage! Our relations are compromised! Our hierarchies are rotten! Our everyday lives are poisonous murder! This world is meaningless, pathetic, and stupid! And we still find ways to enjoy a good game. Imagine if there weren't the background noise that is general societal collapse! You telling me the art wouldn't be better?
So, yeah, Suits is so close but ultimately he fails, I think, to see the broader structure of the psychosexual, whereby sex proper is a mode of expression/ transmission, art is a mode of expression/ transmission, and games are a mode of expression/ transmission, all in dialogue.
I need now to go back and reread "Games: Agency as Art," in part because it's unclear to me now in what ways Nguyen does or does not improve upon Suits' basic definition of games. It seems now as if Suits has done a lot of the heavy lifting, but now these texts have regrettably merged somewhat in my mind.
My critique of that work was ultimately very similar as well; it's trying artificially to isolate games from their dependence on a given historicity, in the process misrepresenting the significance of art, music, and sexuality.
Very interesting! It doesn't quite stick the landing, though. The discussion of utopia is especially lacking. Let's discuss its strengths and shortcomings.
Overall, the definition of games and gaming given in the text seems serviceable at least, and Suits does a good job going through relevant counterexamples, and possible false positives and false negatives his definition produces.
My motivations going into this is a desire to explore deep structural relations between gaming, art, music, and psychosexual dynamics, up to and including sexual acts. It stands to figure that, in a post-scarcity post-conflict utopian civilization, life would consist mostly of games, art, music, celebration, and sexuality.
But Suits is so invested in disavowing the connections between games and other psychological and experiential modes, I worry that he seems fundamentally to misinterpret basic elements of reality.
So for Suits, in this utopia, there wouldn't actually be an emphasis on art or sex. The argument is basically, "No struggle, no good art! No war, no good sex!" which is rhetorically tired. It also, honestly, has fascistic resonances.
To give a quote:
"The obsessive popularity that sex has always enjoyed is, I suspect, inseparably bound up with man's non-Utopian condition. Sex, as we have come to know and love it, is part and parcel with repression, guilt, naughtiness, domination and submission, liberation, rebellion, sadism and masochism, romance, and theology. But none of these things has a place in Utopia. Therefore, we ought at least to face the possibility that with the removal of all of these constituents of sex as we value it, there will be little left but a pleasant sensation in the loins - or wherever."
And there are even more dubious claims to this effect that I won't be quoting.
Likewise, consider the argument about art in an utopian society:
"Art has a subject matter which consists in the actions and passions of men: with human aspirations and frustrations, hopes and fears, triumphs and tragedies, with flaws of character, moral dilemmas, joy and sorrow. But it would seem that none of these necessary ingredients of art could exist in Utopia."
Suits seems to be worried basically that, since games are artificial contrivances, people who send their lives gaming will ultimately come to think that their lives are fake and meaningless. But there's really no reason to suppose this.
In fact, empirically, one can observe even in our own society that the abstraction of gaming tends often to cause people to take gaming more seriously than everyday struggles. Abstraction creates, and is, holiness, sacredness. A utopian world would be 100% sacred. Everything would shimmer.
Life devoid of struggle would be like Aristotle's thought devoid of slave labor: it would be better. People could put their whole souls into the experience. Everything would be intensified, as well, if death were impossible. If people wanted it, the "gloves could come off," etc.
Gaming, art, and sexuality in a utopian society would be literal godliness. I have absolutely no doubt that people would find meaning in it. The experience of pure leisure would reach a fervor and intensity that we could hardly even fathom.
Our world is trash! Our order is garbage! Our relations are compromised! Our hierarchies are rotten! Our everyday lives are poisonous murder! This world is meaningless, pathetic, and stupid! And we still find ways to enjoy a good game. Imagine if there weren't the background noise that is general societal collapse! You telling me the art wouldn't be better?
So, yeah, Suits is so close but ultimately he fails, I think, to see the broader structure of the psychosexual, whereby sex proper is a mode of expression/ transmission, art is a mode of expression/ transmission, and games are a mode of expression/ transmission, all in dialogue.
I need now to go back and reread "Games: Agency as Art," in part because it's unclear to me now in what ways Nguyen does or does not improve upon Suits' basic definition of games. It seems now as if Suits has done a lot of the heavy lifting, but now these texts have regrettably merged somewhat in my mind.
My critique of that work was ultimately very similar as well; it's trying artificially to isolate games from their dependence on a given historicity, in the process misrepresenting the significance of art, music, and sexuality.
September 7, 2024
Reading this has been a long time coming for me. In my pursuit of books and media that "take games seriously", Suits has been a repeated reference, especially so in C Thi Nguyen's fantastic Games: Agency as Art which was my favorite read of last year.
I've seen some complaints about The Grasshopper's framing but I found it both entertaining and effective. Sure, a more straightforward philosophical text would be more shorter and more direct but I felt like Suits' approach served the purpose well and helped the book read smoothly. Suits uses the conversational approach to his arguments feel rigorous and sincere. I wish I could say I found them convincing, not for a lack of agreeing with him, but because I felt like I was already familiar with his point of view, again, from reading Games: Agency as Art. Still, his idea of people being "secret grasshoppers" and the utopian vision of games felt resonate and beautiful. As an aspiring true grasshopper and internal striving player, I loved it.
I've seen some complaints about The Grasshopper's framing but I found it both entertaining and effective. Sure, a more straightforward philosophical text would be more shorter and more direct but I felt like Suits' approach served the purpose well and helped the book read smoothly. Suits uses the conversational approach to his arguments feel rigorous and sincere. I wish I could say I found them convincing, not for a lack of agreeing with him, but because I felt like I was already familiar with his point of view, again, from reading Games: Agency as Art. Still, his idea of people being "secret grasshoppers" and the utopian vision of games felt resonate and beautiful. As an aspiring true grasshopper and internal striving player, I loved it.
April 25, 2018
very bizarre very interesting read. honestly the most important chapters are 2, 3, 14, and 15. a socratic exploration of game play and the function of sport in utopia.
it begins with a riddle in the form of a dream that the grasshopper has: there is a world in which everyone thinks they are doing work, but are actually playing a game. the moment that grasshopper explains what is going on, the person disappears.
the solution to the riddle is that the people in grasshopper's dream are living in a utopia, where work is no longer necessary but can be done. and, by extension, once they learn that they are only playing games, then they feel their lives are no longer worth living, because games are meaningless, so they disappear.
SO. it's very strange. but also very enlightening re: thesis work. so thats good. a really quick read.
it begins with a riddle in the form of a dream that the grasshopper has: there is a world in which everyone thinks they are doing work, but are actually playing a game. the moment that grasshopper explains what is going on, the person disappears.
the solution to the riddle is that the people in grasshopper's dream are living in a utopia, where work is no longer necessary but can be done. and, by extension, once they learn that they are only playing games, then they feel their lives are no longer worth living, because games are meaningless, so they disappear.
SO. it's very strange. but also very enlightening re: thesis work. so thats good. a really quick read.
November 8, 2012
This is a notable contribution to the literature on games, and should be read if that is something that you are into. I wouldn't highly recommend it as a reading experience: perhaps some people enjoy the refashioning of thought experiments as full-fledged fictional narratives, but I'm not one of them. The "clever" form does make what would otherwise be a dry exploration more readable, but it caused me a significant degree of irritation as well. Suits provides a definition of games, which will prove useful for anyone doing research in this area.
As a side note, I am curious about who made the decision to bring in an illustrator for a work of academic philosophy. While the chapter illustrations add nothing tangible, they are appealing in their own right.
As a side note, I am curious about who made the decision to bring in an illustrator for a work of academic philosophy. While the chapter illustrations add nothing tangible, they are appealing in their own right.
January 4, 2022
This is a neat little book and would serve as a fantastic introduction to philosophy. With a classic dialogue style a la Plato with lots of interesting arguments, humor and a fun subject matter this easy read seems perfect to that end. I knew of Wittgenstein's remarks about the undefinableness of games and had taken it as a given - so (in combination with being a lover of board games) it was extra fun to have those ideas shattered.
September 16, 2022
Proof that even the best analytic philosophy is still extremely annoying
August 23, 2023
12.1 OPEN GAMES
g: Not necessarily, Skepticus. In the kind of prolongation which consists in repairing defective games, the eff orts to prolong the play are made outside the game, but there may be games whose prolongation is brought about by moves in the game itself. Kierkegaard’s Diarist, for example, appears to be playing just such a game, and it is that fact, I suggest, rather than the fact that he appears to be putting reverse English on genuine seduction, which holds the solution to our problem.
s: What do you mean?
g: Well, once he has decided to play the game of Seduction, we fi nd the Diarist cautioning himself against succeeding too soon. Th e greatest danger to the game is that the girl’s ardour for the Diarist may become so great that she will succumb without the necessity for any further campaigning, and so the ‘seducer’ must, from time to time, throw cold water on her growing
passion, though not so much, of course, as to extinguish it altogether. He is, that is to say, continually postponing completion of the game. He keeps moving back the finish line, as it were, so that the race will not end. And when it does end, the Diarist realizes that he will experience not the
exaltation of victory but only ‘a certain sad satiety.’
15.3 Resolution
if, as I believe, sex is the product rather than the victim of civilization, then when civilization
goes, sex – at least as a very highly valued item – goes as well. In general, Skepticus, I find the current (or at least the recent) vogue enjoyed by the injunction to ‘let it all hang out’ unwise in a fundamental respect. I have no quarrel with the act of letting it all hang out, for that, as when we
undo a very tight belt or girdle, can produce a profound satisfaction. But once the act of permitting to hang out whatever it is we wish to hang out has been completed, and the attendant relief enjoyed, all we are left with in the end is just a lot of things hanging out. And in the absence of any new constraints upon them they just continue to hang there, pendulous monuments to volitional entropy.
15.9
So, while game playing need not be the sole occupation of Utopia, it is the essence, the ‘without which not’ of Utopia.
g: No, Skepticus, I am truly the Grasshopper; that is, an adumbration of the ideal of existence, just as the games we play in our non-Utopian lives are intimations of things to come. For even now it is games which give us something to do when there is nothing to do. We thus call games ‘pastimes,’ and regard them as trifling fillers of the interstices in our lives. But they are much more important than that. They are clues to the future. And their serious cultivation now is perhaps our only salvation. That, if you like, is the metaphysics of leisure time.
g: Not necessarily, Skepticus. In the kind of prolongation which consists in repairing defective games, the eff orts to prolong the play are made outside the game, but there may be games whose prolongation is brought about by moves in the game itself. Kierkegaard’s Diarist, for example, appears to be playing just such a game, and it is that fact, I suggest, rather than the fact that he appears to be putting reverse English on genuine seduction, which holds the solution to our problem.
s: What do you mean?
g: Well, once he has decided to play the game of Seduction, we fi nd the Diarist cautioning himself against succeeding too soon. Th e greatest danger to the game is that the girl’s ardour for the Diarist may become so great that she will succumb without the necessity for any further campaigning, and so the ‘seducer’ must, from time to time, throw cold water on her growing
passion, though not so much, of course, as to extinguish it altogether. He is, that is to say, continually postponing completion of the game. He keeps moving back the finish line, as it were, so that the race will not end. And when it does end, the Diarist realizes that he will experience not the
exaltation of victory but only ‘a certain sad satiety.’
15.3 Resolution
if, as I believe, sex is the product rather than the victim of civilization, then when civilization
goes, sex – at least as a very highly valued item – goes as well. In general, Skepticus, I find the current (or at least the recent) vogue enjoyed by the injunction to ‘let it all hang out’ unwise in a fundamental respect. I have no quarrel with the act of letting it all hang out, for that, as when we
undo a very tight belt or girdle, can produce a profound satisfaction. But once the act of permitting to hang out whatever it is we wish to hang out has been completed, and the attendant relief enjoyed, all we are left with in the end is just a lot of things hanging out. And in the absence of any new constraints upon them they just continue to hang there, pendulous monuments to volitional entropy.
15.9
So, while game playing need not be the sole occupation of Utopia, it is the essence, the ‘without which not’ of Utopia.
g: No, Skepticus, I am truly the Grasshopper; that is, an adumbration of the ideal of existence, just as the games we play in our non-Utopian lives are intimations of things to come. For even now it is games which give us something to do when there is nothing to do. We thus call games ‘pastimes,’ and regard them as trifling fillers of the interstices in our lives. But they are much more important than that. They are clues to the future. And their serious cultivation now is perhaps our only salvation. That, if you like, is the metaphysics of leisure time.
May 20, 2021
As the title suggests, this is a book about games, life and utopia. The book is written mostly in the form of a dialogue. It is a philosophy book, however; not a story. The Grasshopper, the central character, dialogues with his disciples about the definition of games and the ideal of life.
The majority of the book is spent establishing and defending the definition of games. The Grasshopper posits his definition, his disciples reply with counters, and the grasshopper disproves these counters. The reasoning is strong and clear. The author manages to soften the dry analytic philosophy about games by putting it into a playful and humorous dialectical form. That said, I wouldn’t call it laugh out loud funny. The jokes are mostly silly or absurd and sometimes had me saying “okay, get to the point.”
The definition of a game is to engage in an activity directed toward a specific end, using only means permitted by rules, where those rules prohibit more efficient means, and where the rules are accepted because they make possible such an activity. In short, to play a game is to try to achieve something in the face of limitations for the intrinsic satisfaction of achieving that thing in the face of those limitations.
The most interesting part of the book is not in the definition of a game. Rather, it is what follows from it. The Grasshopper defines Utopia as a state in which there is no need for instrumental activity: no work, no pursuit of knowledge, no pursuit of love, etc. Any end we desire is available at the push of a button. What would we do in such a state? The only thing left is to play games. That is because they involve putting limitations on a pursuit of an end that one can achieve more efficiently without those limitations. A game is still possible when everything is available at the push of a button. A game is played because it requires means more difficult than the push of a button. Thus, it seems that utopia is a state in which our only logical use of time is to play games. Playing games is the ideal of existence.
The conclusion is probably wrong. But regardless I believe a more interesting insight remains unstated in the book. Maybe it’s the case that we enjoy playing games because they provide a glimpse at utopia. When we play a game or a sport, we have a moment to consider what it would be like to have no needs.
The majority of the book is spent establishing and defending the definition of games. The Grasshopper posits his definition, his disciples reply with counters, and the grasshopper disproves these counters. The reasoning is strong and clear. The author manages to soften the dry analytic philosophy about games by putting it into a playful and humorous dialectical form. That said, I wouldn’t call it laugh out loud funny. The jokes are mostly silly or absurd and sometimes had me saying “okay, get to the point.”
The definition of a game is to engage in an activity directed toward a specific end, using only means permitted by rules, where those rules prohibit more efficient means, and where the rules are accepted because they make possible such an activity. In short, to play a game is to try to achieve something in the face of limitations for the intrinsic satisfaction of achieving that thing in the face of those limitations.
The most interesting part of the book is not in the definition of a game. Rather, it is what follows from it. The Grasshopper defines Utopia as a state in which there is no need for instrumental activity: no work, no pursuit of knowledge, no pursuit of love, etc. Any end we desire is available at the push of a button. What would we do in such a state? The only thing left is to play games. That is because they involve putting limitations on a pursuit of an end that one can achieve more efficiently without those limitations. A game is still possible when everything is available at the push of a button. A game is played because it requires means more difficult than the push of a button. Thus, it seems that utopia is a state in which our only logical use of time is to play games. Playing games is the ideal of existence.
The conclusion is probably wrong. But regardless I believe a more interesting insight remains unstated in the book. Maybe it’s the case that we enjoy playing games because they provide a glimpse at utopia. When we play a game or a sport, we have a moment to consider what it would be like to have no needs.
November 25, 2023
The book Finite and Infinite Games wishes it was. Quite relevant if you are in the business of imagining [u]/[pro]topian futures that aren't disqualifyingly dull:
Pairs well with The Player of Games, as such.
What I envisage is a culture quite different from our own in terms of its basis. Whereas our own culture is based on various kinds of scarcity — economic, moral, scientific, erotic — the culture of Utopia will be based on plenitude. The notable institutions of Utopia, accordingly, will [be] institutions which foster sport and other games. But sports and games unthought of today; sports and games that will require for their exploitation — that is, for their mastery and enjoyment — as much energy as is expended today in serving the institutions of scarcity.
Pairs well with The Player of Games, as such.
January 30, 2024
The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia is an intertaining approach to a philosophical considation of games by Bernard Suits. The book is a dialogue or conversation between the Grasshopper, philosopher extrodinaire, and his two students, Skepticus and Prudence. The Grasshopper puts forth his ideas in many entertaining ways, especially by the use of story with Skepticus and Prudence responding with questions and counter-arugments. It is quite an effective and entertaining way to guide the reader through the considerations.
A colleague used this book as a major text for an introduction ot philosophy course. It was well received by the students.
The book contains an Introduction, a Preface, a section of Acknowledgements, an introduction to the Players, 15 chapters, 3 Appendices (further essays), and a section of Permissions Acknowledgements.
The book is a great way to introduce the process of philosophy to students, an important part of the conversation about games and life, and an entertaining read.
A colleague used this book as a major text for an introduction ot philosophy course. It was well received by the students.
The book contains an Introduction, a Preface, a section of Acknowledgements, an introduction to the Players, 15 chapters, 3 Appendices (further essays), and a section of Permissions Acknowledgements.
The book is a great way to introduce the process of philosophy to students, an important part of the conversation about games and life, and an entertaining read.
July 16, 2023
If I were to recommend a book about a philosopher/ linguists take on games and play, I would probably recommend them this book, over Wittgenstein, huizinga, Kant or Schuppenhauer. The other works are dry, hard to read and unnecessarily convoluted. This one, while not perfect, is actually a short fun read. However as a game designer, a direct utility you can take from this book is limited. While at times the definitions in the book make sense within the dialectic, I am not sure they are useful models to describe games. If you know what a game is, you can maybe use that knowledge to define what a good game is, and hence make better games. You can take some limited learnings from this book, for example the way scarcity, resources and efficiency are tied into the definition of a game. But I found the definitions in the book not to be that valuable at times, although this doesn't make them untrue.
July 26, 2024
Largely a definition of games, as unnecessary activities meant for enjoying attempting to do something. I think the definition is coherent and useful for determining the what and why of things we call games. Not useful, however, for understanding the video game medium (which prioritizes art and story as well as challenge, and packages these things into "experiences").
The book is written as a comic dialogue with a grasshopper, and this both makes this book the easiest work of philosophy I've ever read, and made it often funny and entertaining. It's a good entry to philosophy, even if the topic isn't exactly earth shattering.
There's a bit at the end about games as a utopian activity, as in we would be doing them had we nothing necessary to occupy our time with. Thought provoking section, though I think inconclusive.
I wish we used his term "gamewright" instead of game designer, haha.
The book is written as a comic dialogue with a grasshopper, and this both makes this book the easiest work of philosophy I've ever read, and made it often funny and entertaining. It's a good entry to philosophy, even if the topic isn't exactly earth shattering.
There's a bit at the end about games as a utopian activity, as in we would be doing them had we nothing necessary to occupy our time with. Thought provoking section, though I think inconclusive.
I wish we used his term "gamewright" instead of game designer, haha.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews