Seems weighty. Doesn’t that make for a dull game?
It could be - easily. There's nothing more tedious than a game who's point is to save the world.
But The Ten Year Game molds itself to the personalities of the people playing. Sure, if one year attracts a lot of bookish, dreamy souls, then that’s where the game will drift. But there are ten teams. A few are downright biased towards disruptive and rowdy events. Change is required; so is recycling events that work (and tossing those that don't). So the game gets better with time.
Besides - games can stand to be a little weightier. The Mayans and Aztecs were soaked their ballgames in meaning and ritual (and sometimes a lopped off head or two!). That didn’t keep them from watching, rapt, for 3,000 years. Ditto the first Olympics for the Greeks, which were diplomatic events, and religious rites and spectator sports all at once. Easter Islanders used a deep and lively game to choose their religious leaders. Medieval Christians used the joust to decide where God stood on tough questions. Games today have gotten light.
Besides, games are kind of an amazing practice. They find us dangling in a place we know all too well -- between skill and chance. There’s what we can do, and what we have to cross our fingers for. Games phrase the human condition in a bearable way - even a fun one.
And conflict - where else does conflict make as much sense? In life, we have to skirt it. In games, we run to it. Religion is an especially tough nut to crack in that respect. We all agree to politely disagree, let conflict simmer behind the closed mosque and church and temple doors. But what if there were a religion that embraced conflict? Seems like a very cool way to play out deep contradictions that just have to come up whenever two people share their deep views of the world.
It could be - easily. There's nothing more tedious than a game who's point is to save the world.
But The Ten Year Game molds itself to the personalities of the people playing. Sure, if one year attracts a lot of bookish, dreamy souls, then that’s where the game will drift. But there are ten teams. A few are downright biased towards disruptive and rowdy events. Change is required; so is recycling events that work (and tossing those that don't). So the game gets better with time.
Besides - games can stand to be a little weightier. The Mayans and Aztecs were soaked their ballgames in meaning and ritual (and sometimes a lopped off head or two!). That didn’t keep them from watching, rapt, for 3,000 years. Ditto the first Olympics for the Greeks, which were diplomatic events, and religious rites and spectator sports all at once. Easter Islanders used a deep and lively game to choose their religious leaders. Medieval Christians used the joust to decide where God stood on tough questions. Games today have gotten light.
Besides, games are kind of an amazing practice. They find us dangling in a place we know all too well -- between skill and chance. There’s what we can do, and what we have to cross our fingers for. Games phrase the human condition in a bearable way - even a fun one.
And conflict - where else does conflict make as much sense? In life, we have to skirt it. In games, we run to it. Religion is an especially tough nut to crack in that respect. We all agree to politely disagree, let conflict simmer behind the closed mosque and church and temple doors. But what if there were a religion that embraced conflict? Seems like a very cool way to play out deep contradictions that just have to come up whenever two people share their deep views of the world.
YOU HAVE QUESTIONS...
...is your question here?
Seems a little weighty. Doesn’t that make for a dull game?
Who’s in charge?
The religion angle makes me nervous. See, I’m an atheist.
The religion angle makes me nervous. See, I have my own beliefs.
Why does it take ten years? I don’t have ten years to play a game.
Why games, anyway?
What's behind all this?
Who else is playing?