In doing so, it aims to pull the attention of game studies scholars away from the far too portable definition of gameplay and deeper into a complex and socially relevant book. To demonstrate this utility, this paper responds to two recent works in game studies that take Suits more seriously than most (Tulloch, 2014 Boluk and Lemieux, 2017), conducts a close reading of the generally neglected sixth chapter of the book, and offers some concluding observations on the political relationship between games and society. The text is therefore useful for anyone concerned with the social or political dimensions of games. The Grasshopper is rewarding not because it establishes apparently universal truths, but because it situates these truths in social context. As a transparently, reflectively Socratic dialogue, The Grasshopper works not only by mounting a discourse in which interlocutors arrive at a series of rigorous definitions, but by inviting the reader to read between the lines.

While it is cited in early works important to the field, it is less frequently cited than one might expect moreover, these citations are rarely substantive, often remaining restricted to his definition of gameplay as 'the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.' This paper responds to this general disregard by highlighting the productive ambiguities of the text, particularly with regard to the relationship between games and society. His landmark book, The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, is rigorous but playful, offering a series of definitions, parables and puzzles on its way to a quixotic conclusion concerning the relationship of play to the good life. Reconsidering The Grasshopper: On the Reception of Bernard Suits in Game Studies by Liam Mitchell Abstractīernard Suits can be counted alongside the likes of Johan Huizinga and Roger Caillois as one of the progenitors of game studies.

The grasshopper by bernard suits