Talk:Homo Ludens

Why is this article focused on a translated edition rather than the book as a whole?

It seems the Beacon Press version is actually a reprint of a much earlier (1949) version originally published by Routledge & Kegan Paul. See: http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/1474/homo_ludens_johan_huizinga_routledge_1949_.pdf -- I'd really like to work on this article some more, but it seems like some original research needs to be done and published elsewhere first on this strange edition's origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.242.50 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed the focus to the book as whole and added a section for different editions of the book. I don't understand why "original research needs to be done" before improving the article. Could you clarify that? Wikikrax (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Imbalance

Far too much of this stub is devoted to the differences between of culture and in culture. While this is of some interest, it ought not take up the bulk of an article on the concept of "homo ludens". Also, the material sounds very much like original research. Would the original author (or others) be able to expand on, first, the concept of homo ludens and, second, on the arguments of this particular book. Interlingua 01:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less. This is extremely interesting and pertinent and anyone who isn't interested can skip over it. Mark K. Jensen (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Of versus In

This is very interesting observation on Imbalance. The distinction is in fact crucial. The original translator of the text from the German to English writes:

“Logically, of course, Huizinga is correct; but as English prepositions are not governed by logic I have retained the more euphonious ablative in this subtitle.—Trans.”

I will add in this quotation to the main page.

But, User:Interlingua is dead right! Over-emphasis on a linguistic issue with respect to “of versus in” of the translation from German to English should not dominate.

I use the book (English translation) all the time. Perhaps I can expand on it a little. --Михал Орела (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts

To resolve the “of versus In” issue, it might be more elegant to place the text in question towards the bottom of the article. I also propose to name the passage “Foreword controversy”. This would do justice to Huizinga himself, the (unknown) translator, and the original author(s) of this Wikipedia article. --Михал Орела (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I have added in a formal section on Notes/References. The goal now is to place some of the “Foreword controversy” text in the footnotes. --Михал Орела (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

State of play

Yes! I could not resist the "pun" in this heading :-) I have tidied up the main article. Nothing has been deleted. Now I am wondering how to proceed. The Foreword Controversy is indeed significant with respect to issues of translation and the struggle between author and translator. Such struggles will always occur. I felt exactly the same as Huizinga when I first read the book. Indeed, in my English copy the word IN is crossed out and the word OF written in by hand. I did that myself.

Now that I am older and wiser(?) I can see the point of view of the translator.

To continue to develop the article, it might be best to leave the contentious FOREWORD issue where it is, at the front. This would do justice both to the translator (if some nice words were added) as well as to Huizinga himself. It also highlights a very significant general issue in TRANSLATION. If so much fury arises over the distinction OF/IN what translation wars might there be, in general. The classical example (at least in northern hemispherical western culture) is the Bible. --Михал Орела (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Chapter I: Nature and significance of play as a cultural phenomenon

The first chapter of any book is important and generally one of the most difficult to write. And the first sentence of that first chapter usually sets the tone. Here I choose to quote the first sentence of Huizinga which puts Play way ahead of Culture. Specifically, there is an undertext! Animals played before Humans came to be. The first sentence is deliberately evolutionary. (Михал Орела (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Sources

Here is a list of the resources used by Huizinga in Chapter I

• Leo Frobenius Kulturgeschichte Afrikas, Prolegomena zu einer historischen Gestaltlehre; Schicksalskunde im Sinne des Kulturwerdens (Leipzig 1932). Note that a different edition, Kulturgeschichte Afrikas (Zürich 1933), is cited on Leo Frobenius.

Once I have completed the list then I will see how to include them appropriately in the article.--Михал Орела (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sutton-Smith quotation

As is, the quotation seems misleading - someone without earlier knowledge could be under the impression that it's quoted by Huizenga from Sutton-Smith. Also, the relevance of the quote to the description of Homo Ludens' first chapter is not established.(84.97.218.101 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Chapter II: The play concept as expressed in language

A small section on chapter 2 of the book gives insight into the relationship of the thing and the word denoting it. Ironically, the chapter can be applied directly to the Foreword controversy itself. Again the goal is to give some idea of the range of languages that Huizinga knows about and uses. --Михал Орела (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to give some examples of play-words used by Huizinga in his book. Greek and Latin are obvious starters. English is essential (play and game). Other languages may surprise. --Михал Орела 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chapter III: Play and contest as civilizing functions

The purpose of introducing the material in chapter 3 is Huizinga's view that "culture arises in the form of play". --Михал Орела (talk) 12:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Chapter VI: Playing and knowing

Isn't Mathematics playing & knowing?Linkato1 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Chapter VII: Play and poetry

I need a break! Maybe I start on this. The interesting entry point for me is Beowulf! So! That is where I will begin. --Михал Орела 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chapter X: Play-forms in art

“Wherever there is a catch-word ending in -ism we are hot on the tracks of a play-community.”

I am wondering if Huizinga had in mind Communism, Socialism, Fascism and so on, when he talked about "-ism"? The concept is certainly applicable to the Plastic Arts. --Михал Орела (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second thoughts on the use of the quotation. According to the scheme I have already adopted—to choose a passage to quote from the chapter in question, it seems wrong to play this little game of using a passage from a later chapter? Or maybe, on the contrary, Huizinga would approve of such a "naughty" move? Does it not seem right in the spirit of Homo Ludens to "play a little with the rules"? --Михал Орела (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Chapter XI: Western civilization Sub Specie Ludi

--Михал Орела (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Chapter XII: The play-element in contemporary civilization

I am running out of editing time today and I thought it would be a good idea to include a section now on the last chapter of the book. In doing so I was inspired by Huizinga's remark on American Elections and considered it appropriate to raise awareness for Homo Ludens by indirectly connecting it to the current US Presidential race. --Михал Орела (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Book template

HOMO LUDENS,
a study of the play element in culture

Author	Johan Huizinga
Cover artist	Peter Bruegel the Elder
Language	English
Publisher	Beacon Press, Boston
Publication date	1955
Media type	Print
ISBN	978-0807046814

--Михал Орела (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Have been experimenting with "book cover" --Михал Орела (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done playing; cover is ready. --Михал Орела (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

"Let my playing be my learning, and my learning be my playing."

I am currently trying to track this down. Using google gives hits and each hit refers to Huizinga. But I have yet to find page number!

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MihalOrela (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Translator's Note

I am unable to verify the correctness of the Translator's Note given by an earlier author:

The version in print and widely available in English is a translation and synthesis of the original Dutch and the first English translation (done by Huizinga himself), because "a comparison of the two texts shows a number of discrepancies and a marked difference in style" (Translators Note, unnumbered page)

In my 1955 Edition the Translator's Note is the following:

“This edition is prepared from the German edition published in Switzerland, 1944, and also from the author's own English translation of the text, which he made shortly before his death. Comparison of the two texts shows a number of discrepancies and a marked difference in style; the translator hopes that the following version has achieved a reasonable synthesis.”

I propose to include this 1955 note as a reference in the original article. --Михал Орела (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of contents and list of chapter headings

It would be nice to display, in an elegant manner, the 12 chapter titles. Perhaps a wikitable of some form might be used? --Михал Орела (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

How to proceed?

I have finished the (first)(overall) structuring of the article. In order to give some form to the article on the book I have used the 12 chapters as main headings and chose a quotation to illustrate each.

It is not clear what now needs to be done. Certainly I need to take a break from it for a while. 3 days work on it is enough for now.

)

--Михал Орела 14:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Book cover

I would like to include a copy of the book cover. However, experience elsewhere has shown me how difficult this can be. So! I know that the Beacon Press used Children's Games by Peter Brueghel the Elder.

Fortunately, this is available on Wikipedia already. So! I have added the image here as a sort of placeholder :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihal Orela (talk • contribs) 10:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting article

I have reverted article to previous incarnation. Some editor is deleting but not signing. This is the second occurrence within 3 days. I think it need to go to arbitration.--Михал Орела (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Translation(s) and author(s)

I am confused about which translations are available. When I read Homo Ludens the first time, around 1978, I seem to remember the translator being identified as ______ Jones, but am not certain of this. I do remember that the translator's note about "of/in" was included. I would like to read another translation if available, and Huizinga's own translation into English. Can anyone clarify by identifying the name of the translator and/or other editions? Yucca Whipple (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have information on translations and editions; will enter this info later today--Михал Орела (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 texts available to me (on my desk before me) when I write:

• Huizinga, Johan (1955). Homo ludens; a study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0807046814. -- this is the first paperback (Beacon) of the English edition (with copyright 1950, by Roy Publishers). The translator's note says that "this [English] edition is prepared from the German edition published in Switzerland, 1944, and also from the author's own English translation of the text, which he made shortly before his death" [1945].

• Хьойзинха, Йохан (2000). Homo Ludens. Изследване на игровия елемент на културата. София: ИК "Захарий Стоянов". ISBN 954-9559-47-5. -- this is the Bulgarian edition, translated from the original Dutch. It is noteworthy that the original Latin title "Homo Ludens" is retained in this version.

I will try to find details of the original Dutch edition and the subsequent German edition, of which I am aware.--Михал Орела (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Huizinga, Johan (1938). Homo Ludens: Proeve Ener Bepaling Van Het Spelelement Der Cultuur. Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff cop. 1985. -- this is the original Dutch edition.

• Huizinga, Johan (1940). Homo Ludens: Versuch einer Bestimmung des Spielelementes der Kultur. Amsterdam: Pantheon. -- I discovered this German edition at http://www.antiqbook.co.uk/boox/plu/books24000.shtml.

• Huizinga, Johan (1944). Homo Ludens: Versuch einer Bestimmung des Spielelementes der Kultur. -- the German edition referred to by the Translator of the English edition.

That summarizes what I personally know of the Homo Ludens translations.--Михал Орела (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

On the identity of the translator: might it be R.F.C. Hull as given at http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ian.mccormick/biblio.htm?

There is also:

Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

There is a translators note before the foreword, but I cannot find the name of the translator. Perhaps the book page should reference this edition of the english translation, as it is earlier than the 1955 edition? Wikikrax (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring and polishing article on Homo Ludens

Hey. I noticed that that this article needs some work, restructuring and polishing. I'm curious of whether the original editor is still around and whether they have suggestions on what should be worked on first. I don't think the current structure of having each chapter as a main topic works very well, and the article could benefit from a more standard apparoach to book articles. Wikikrax (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Books guide gives a suggested structure for a book article as follow:

• Synopsis / Overview / Themes
• Awards and nominations / Popular success / Publication
• Reviews / Commercial and critical reception / Criticism / Analysis / Reception
• Contents / Chapters
• Release details / Editions / Publication

Following that structure in this article would make it much more readable to the average reader. Changing the structure to the suggested would mean having the chapters closer to the end and probably changing the foreword controversy somewhere closer to the end too - I think it is an important scholarly detail, but not much use to most readers of the article. Wikikrax (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Added some sections an reformatted the article. Overview is still a stub. Wikikrax (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Play theory" in the introduction

I could not find any reference to the term "play theory" and do not remember it mentioned in the book. I used the 1949 Routledge edition. I added a tag that somebody can hopefully remove and add a reference to where the phrase appears. Wikikrax (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the date of publication wrong?

I'm looking at the Yale library online scans, and even though there is an author's note dating to 1938, the info on the book itself states that the first edition was published on 1944. Am I missing something?

http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/1474/homo_ludens_johan_huizinga_routledge_1949_.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.181.170 (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the book was published in Dutch in 1938 and the first English edition was published in 1944. I'm not sure I understand your question. Wikikrax (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Racism in the Text

There is some discussion about inherent racism in the language, the theories, and afaiu the methodology of Homo Ludens, specifically about the notion of "savage" (=African, Native American, Australian..) VS "civilised" (=European) culture. Here's a source that discusses this, while also noting that despite the racist language "Huizinga argued for tolerance and acceptance" (as opposed to other early game studies authors): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21594937.2021.1934945 2A02:8388:343:CE80:E5D0:E6C4:9BA4:A3E5 (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)viesc