Jan Švelch

Originally deployed to decentralize the role of the main text in literary criticism (Genette 1982, 1987), paratext has taken on new life in other fields of scholarly inquiry, including game studies. Since its first use in Aarseth’s Cybertext (1997), the term has been applied to various game-related phenomena, often in ways that contradict Genette’s original conceptualization. While its main mission – to highlight previously overlooked elements of game cultures – is shared among the various approaches, the scope of paratext has been both expanded and reduced as I have discussed in my dissertation (Švelch 2017). Currently, three markedly different paratextual frameworks can be identified, including a version that relatively closely follows Genette’s definition (see Galloway 2012; Švelch 2016; Backe 2018). However, the most influential approach (71%), based on a citation analysis of 197 game studies texts published between 1997–2018, builds on Consalvo’s (2007) interpretation of the concept. This version opens up the term to cultural phenomena created by players, journalists, and other parties external to video game production, which would fall outside of Genette’s framework. In this perspective, streaming, reviews, or walkthroughs all become paratextual due to their unquestionable impact on video game culture. On the other side of the spectrum is the reduced framework inspired by the work of Wolf (2006) and adapted to the video game context by Rockenberger (2014). According to this approach, paratextual elements are not only limited by having to be authored by video game creators, but also by spatial proximity to the game (e.g. introductory sequences, menus). The aim of this talk is not to police the use the concept of paratext but to show how each of these frameworks highlights certain phenomena, but in turn also obscures others. The different approaches have clear methodological implications, which influence how we can talk about video games.

Panel discussion