Chapter review
Chapter Review of Doug Brown’s Thesis on ‘The Suspension of Disbelief in Video Games’
By Daniel Ivanovic
Forward
I’ve chosen to review Chapter Two entitled ‘Defining Suspension of Disbelief’. I made this decision to gain more insight into the true definition of the term, where it originated from and what it really means. My reasoning stems from the notion that the correct solution to a problem lies in fully understanding the problem first. To this end I cannot expect to achieve successful suspension of disbelief within my own apps without understanding what it means to do this.
The key point discussed by the author: is this clearly defined?
The purpose of this chapter is to form a working definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’ as a necessity to clarify the meaning to the reader and the author before he himself can attempt to tackle how suspension of disbelief works in games. The author makes clear his intentions in the introductory paragraph of the chapter when he states the following when referring to differences of how suspension of disbelief works within various mediums:
These major differences need to be investigated further in order to chisel out how suspension of disbelief works in games. However, before analysing these complexities, it is important to pin down exactly what the phrase is defining. (p. 57)
After deep analysis into a variety of opinions of the definition of the term since it’s coining by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817 and how to achieve the desired effect which consumes the majority of the chapter, the author concludes with this clear and final definition:
In short, our working definition of suspension of disbelief, which provides a foundation for the rest of this thesis is as follows: the act of suspending one’s disbelief is the voluntary, temporary creation in response to textual stimuli of an imaginative space that transcends the text yet is constantly renewed through its progression. (p. 87)
What evidence has the author produced to support this central idea?
To support his eventual working definition for the term ‘suspension of disbelief’ the author looks back at its coining and then ventures through history from the 1800’s right the way through to modern times considering a multitude of opinions and works from numerous experts covering a variant of professions including philosophers, historians, musicians, authors, poets, playwrights, film makers, game makers and more. The author then balances these opinions to construct his interpretation and crystallises his basis in his conclusion when he states:
This final working definition retains the original phrase’s three core participles and builds upon Deflugentis’ (2009) succinct explanation of the phrase cited above, as well as taking elements from Huizinga’s (1955) definition of poesis. (p. 87)
How convincing are the reasons given to the author’s point of view?
The reasons given are convincing in the sense that they take into account a large number of varied opinions (this being the evidence) spanning such a lengthy period of time, and more so, the opinions are taken from practitioners from such a wide range of differing professional disciplines which welcomes a broad range of arguments which he then weighs against one another in a succinct and precise manor.
The author is careful to demonstrate balance throughout in favour of siding with or discounting any opinions, take for example the following passage where the author is summarising an attempt to support the theory that belief in the story world is overarched by an array of socio-cultural historical contexts:
These perspectives and contexts are relevant and necessary if we are to come to a balanced definition of suspension of disbelief. (p. 65)
Or in the following text where the author finds parallels between two seemingly opposing arguments between Coleridge and J.R Tolkien to support his point of view:
Although at this point Tolkien and Coleridge’s positions may seem diametrically opposed, in truth both authors are defending the same thing. (p. 71)
Could the evidence be interpreted in other ways?
Being that the evidence in the case of this chapter is the opinion of others, identifying whether these opinions could be interpreted differently was in honesty a very challenging task and one for which I struggled to find any clear examples worthy of mention. This was not for want / lack of trying but simply that nothing was apparent, and for this reason, I finished the chapter feeling positively convinced by the authors point of view.
What is the author’s research method (e.g. qualitative, quantitative, experimental)?
This chapter reaches its conclusion by way of comparing, analysing and balancing the opinions of a wide range of subjects. There is no statistical data present, there were no experiments or organised observations carried out to obtain these opinions so it’s hard to settle upon a clear method of research. One could tentatively say that the method was more quantitative than anything else in that it is based on observing the written opinions of subjects over history in order to understand the comprehension process that occurs when readers expose themselves to texts.
What is the relationship assumed by the author between theory and practice?
It’s not abundantly clear from this chapter alone what relationship is assumed by the author between theory and practice. As mentioned before, the purpose of this chapter is solely to reach a working definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’ so that the author can then use this to explore the suspension of disbelief in video games. However, one only needs to look outside the chapter briefly to the ‘Abstract’ section ahead of the ‘Table of Contents’ to see that one of the authors overarching aims within this thesis is to rehabilitate the term and (as he eloquently puts it):
Turn it into a useful and sharpened tool for games studies. (Abstract)
With this in mind and having read over the content of the conclusion to get some further context I can see that the authors intentions are for the theoretical findings surfaced within this thesis to inform and improve his own practice and the practice of others in better achieving suspension of disbelief in video games.
Has the author critically evaluated the other literature in the field?
There is a wealth of other literature referenced throughout this chapter to inform the author’s conclusive definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’. One does not need to read far into the chapter to find critical evaluations of other texts which are strewn across the content from p57 through p88. To name just two instances we can raise the following examples, the first where the author finds fault in a definition made by Hodge & Tripp (1987):
Looking back at the preface, we can see the flaws in this definition, setting the suspension of disbelief up as the enforcement of actual ‘belief’ in the works literary credentials. (p. 60)
And the second where the author points out a contradiction in the work of Richard J. Gerrig (1998):
Given his approach, it appears strange that he appeals back to the metaphor of ‘being transported’ as his defence, since it seems to throw his terminology into jeopardy. (p. 68)
Does the author include literature opposing her / his point of view?
In pursuit of a well-rounded definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’ the author considers various pieces of literature that oppose views which will later be used to directly form key components within his conclusion. For example, the eventual definition contains the word ‘voluntary’ (p. 87) to describe the consumer’s willing of the ‘imaginative space that transcends the text’ (p. 87). While considering opinions to form this very definition the author raises points that bring into question the willingness of the reader, one case being his reference to Tolkien’s literary belief in that he can use ‘coherent rules leaving no room for disbelief to arise’ (p. 72).
Is the research data valid i.e. based on a reliable method and accurate information?
The research is based on opinions taken from a variety of credible sources as described above. In this sense the data can be described as valid. However, opinions are subject to be influenced by a number of external factors including (to name a few) social, economic and cultural differences. It could be argued that despite selecting opinions from numerous experts covering a range of professions and spanning a large period in history that these opinions were in fact cherry picked to assist in the author’s predefined definition of the term for suspension of disbelief.
Can you ‘deconstruct’ the argument – identify the gaps or jumps in the logic?
To deconstruct the argument within this chapter we first need to recognise that the closest thing we have to an argument is the authors eventual conclusion of the working definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’ being:
The voluntary, temporary creation in response to textual stimuli of an imaginative space that transcends the text yet is constantly renewed through its progression. (p. 87)
Under this guise the argument can be unpacked into several key components. The ‘voluntary’ element which is backed by references from Coleridge when in reference to acclimatising the reader with use of a preface (p. 58), he uses the terms ‘cajole’ and ‘jostle’ insinuating that there is some encouragement required but that the reader will eventually need to ‘volunteer’ themselves to the belief in the text. The ‘imaginative space that transcends the text’ is credibly argued by the author to be a form of poetic faith and the inference that the suspension is ‘temporary’ and is ‘constantly renewed through its progression’ can be based on a variety of opinions in the chapter, one being Tolkien’s solution to apply ‘fantastic languages’ (p. 72) and ‘annotated maps’ (p. 72) that he uses as devices to glue the narrative together and assist in the renewal of something that would otherwise not last.
What are the strengths and limitations of this study?
The strengths of this study lie in the inclusion of a large number of varied opinions spanning a long period in history, and in that the opinions are taken from practitioners from a wide range of differing professional disciplines which, as I’ve touched on above, offers a wealth of diversity within the arguments weighed to form the eventual definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’. This diversity is paramount in convincing the reader that the eventual definition is believable. Theoretically one could say that the chapter does have limitations in that the conclusion is based solely on written opinion and that there could be more variety in the methods of research. For instance, one could argue that the author could have orchestrated and observed a focused debate between current relevant professionals on the modern day meaning of the term to collect some methodological data to influence the definition. However, saying this, one does accept that the intention of this chapter is simply to arrive at a definition in order to tackle the core focus of the thesis and inclusion of other research methods at this stage would most certainly be overkill.
What does this book or article contribute to my own work?
Beside giving me a deeper understanding of what is meant by the term ‘suspension of disbelief’, the opinions of Coleridge, Tolkien and numerous others within the chapter have informed me of varied theories and approaches to achieving what the term defines. Notably I’ve been influenced by Coleridge’s method of using framing prefaces summarised as follows:
He is constantly conscious of a need to cajole or jostle the reader into his perceived ‘ideal’ receptive state, generating a favourable climate to move from the standard, normalized prose of the preface into the terrain of uncharted and multifaceted poetry. (p. 58)
The notion that the reader can be acclimatised to poetry by way of a carefully constructed preface can be translated directly into apps and the act of acclimatisation could be achieved by way of an introductory preface to embed the narrative and tease the user past various parts of an app such as the barrier to registration or beginning a new and perhaps timely task (a level) within the app. The introduction to this school of thought brings to memory how well I’ve seen this done in other digital works, such as how Secret Cinema use their registration process to tease the narrative of the film to the consumer and acclimatise the subject for participation in theatre which otherwise might seem uncomfortable.
The reminder of Tolkien’s use of non-textual devices within his literature prompted me to recall my experience of being read The Hobbit (Tolkien, 1937) as a child and the stimulating effect this approach had on me as the consumer in bringing context to the story world that is described in his text and how this excited me to be read more. In the chapter Brown suggests:
Tolkien’s literary belief is not formed by some magical textual power, but by coherent rules leaving no room for disbelief to arise. Thus in Lord of The Rings fantastic languages are freely used and the keys to understanding them provided, amazing journeys are anchored by a series of annotated maps and Old English poems such as The Wanderer, whose true origins are lost can be reframed, fully re-contextualized and allowed to shine anew. (p. 72)
This technique can be transferred directly into my work to bring life to the narrative within my apps and allure the user into what Sean Vanaman, co-founder of game development company Campo Santo refers to as ‘The dance’ with my app when describing how to engage the user and hold their interest.
Aside from the depth of insight into both the definition of the term ‘suspension of disbelief’ and how one could potentially achieve this within my own apps, the final beneficial takeaway from this exercise which cannot be ignored is the improvement to my own writing gained from the exposure to dissecting a piece of academic literature and the realisation that such an activity, despite arduous is both rewarding and inspirational. Saying this, the process has exposed some flaws in my approach to reviewing literature, and I acknowledge that in hindsight my choice of chapter was poor as a result of my neglect to prepare correctly for the review. Though I gave myself plenty of time to perform the review I should have skim read the entire chapter and read through the question topics first before commencing the review, in doing this I would have identified that the chapter did not lend itself well to the review criteria. I won’t make this mistake next time.