Kideogames: Reimagining the fringe of literary studies as the forefront
Kideogames: Reimagining the fringe of literary studies as the forefront
The absence of children’s texts and ludic texts from traditional literary canons, curricula, journals, and conferences might appear obvious, practical, and natural—a straightforward reflection of theoretical and methodological divergence, and of the way texts are grouped outside of academic study. However, these seemingly self-evident explanations do not hold up under scrutiny. In this article, I posit that the omission of children’s texts and ludic texts from well-developed scholarly contexts is partly rooted in the ideological collocation of “children,” “play,” and “low culture.” I compare the strategies used by children’s literature studies and games studies to manage their marginalization and conclude that irrespective of the quality, the variety, the relevance, and the impact of research conducted within these two disciplines, neither will find a permanent home in the serious, sophisticated, “adults-only” space of the literature faculty. I ask whether this is necessarily a problem, and suggest that - when consciously embraced - the lightness of illegitimacy may be a potent as the heft of tradition. Finally, I advocate for an intersectional alliance between children's literature studies and games studies and explore some of the ways in which this kind of academic solidarity might counter the marginalizing effects of infantilization.
childhood, canon formation, Video games, infantilisation, Interdisciplinarity
772-788
Reay, Emma
07fd9558-6d41-426a-abba-c278b28a78f3
1 November 2020
Reay, Emma
07fd9558-6d41-426a-abba-c278b28a78f3
Reay, Emma
(2020)
Kideogames: Reimagining the fringe of literary studies as the forefront.
Games and Culture, 15 (7), .
(doi:10.1177/1555412019841476).
Abstract
The absence of children’s texts and ludic texts from traditional literary canons, curricula, journals, and conferences might appear obvious, practical, and natural—a straightforward reflection of theoretical and methodological divergence, and of the way texts are grouped outside of academic study. However, these seemingly self-evident explanations do not hold up under scrutiny. In this article, I posit that the omission of children’s texts and ludic texts from well-developed scholarly contexts is partly rooted in the ideological collocation of “children,” “play,” and “low culture.” I compare the strategies used by children’s literature studies and games studies to manage their marginalization and conclude that irrespective of the quality, the variety, the relevance, and the impact of research conducted within these two disciplines, neither will find a permanent home in the serious, sophisticated, “adults-only” space of the literature faculty. I ask whether this is necessarily a problem, and suggest that - when consciously embraced - the lightness of illegitimacy may be a potent as the heft of tradition. Finally, I advocate for an intersectional alliance between children's literature studies and games studies and explore some of the ways in which this kind of academic solidarity might counter the marginalizing effects of infantilization.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 22 April 2019
Published date: 1 November 2020
Additional Information:
© The Author(s)
Keywords:
childhood, canon formation, Video games, infantilisation, Interdisciplinarity
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 472315
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/472315
ISSN: 1555-4120
PURE UUID: 9aed3f2c-5564-4a7b-adc8-3ac6f5a153e4
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 01 Dec 2022 17:35
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:15
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Emma Reay
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics