This article examines how games continue and represent the historical rituals of invective poetry exchanges. The article juxtaposes the analog, multiplayer card game Cards Against Humanity, known for its transgressive, profanity-based humor, with two single-player video games that present the invective poetry competition as (more or less) historically accurate activity. The former is argued to be a continuation of the same tradition that encompasses various historical practices such as Germanic flyting or African sounding, while the latter is an attempt at representation, without inviting the players to participate in the same practices. The difference between the card game, which makes a freer use of profanities, and the video game representation, which is devoid of it, are used to discuss to investigate the importance of the rituals involving invective poetry in the contemporary culture, as well as theorize about the differences seen in the analog and video games.
Balogh, A., & Veszelszki, Á. (2020). Politeness and insult in computer games - from a pragmatic point of view. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Communicatio, 7(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.2478/auscom-2020-0006
3.
BatárL. (2007). A Beszólás Mint Beszédaktus [Taunt as a speech act].Magyar Nyelv\Hor, 131(4), 451–565.
4.
BergstromK. (2020). Cards against humanity as a deviant leisure activity[Paper presentation]. Abstract Proceedings of DiGRA 2020 Conference: Play Everywhere, Tampere, Finland, June 3–6, 2020.
5.
BjørkeloK. A. (2022). Playing with boundaries: Empirical studies of transgressions and gaming culture. The University of Bergen.
6.
BoudreauK. (2019). Beyond fun: Transgressive gameplay—Toxic and problematic player behavior as boundary keeping. In: K. Jørgensen & F. Karlsen (Eds.), Transgressions in games and play anthology (pp. 257–271). MIT Press.
7.
ChidesterT. (2004). What the #$%& is happening on television-indecency in broadcasting.CommLaw Conspectus, 13, 135.
DynelM. (2008). No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 4(2), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0001-7
12.
DynelM. (2017). (Im)politeness and telecinematic discourse. In LocherM. A.JuckerA. H. (Eds.), Pragmatics of fiction (pp. 455–488). De Gruyter.
13.
Flynn, C., & Mitchell, C. (2014). “It may be verify it that thy wit is thin”: Interpreting older Scots flyting through hip hop aesthetics. Oral Tradition, 29(1), 69–86.
14.
FrommelJ.MandrykR. L. (2024). Toxicity in esports. In JennyS. E.BesombesN.BrockT.CoteA. C.ScholzT. M. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of esports (1st ed, pp. 529–539). Routledge.
Jones Jr.R. G. (2007). Drag queens, drama queens, and friends: Drama and performance as a solidarity-building function in a gay male friendship circle. Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research, 6, 61–84.
19.
KeltnerD.CappsL.KringA. M.YoungR. C.HeereyE. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review.Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.229
20.
KulariG.RibeiroL.HeinzelmannF. L.HenriqueP. S. C. S. (2024). When breaking glass ceiling leads to glass screens: Gender differences in civility and competitive aggressiveness in esports.European Journal for Sport and Society, 21(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2023.2300891
21.
LangmanL.LukácsA. (2010). Capitalism, contradiction, and the carnivalesque: Alienated labor vs. Ludic play. In Talmagde WrightJ.EmbrickD. G.LukacsA. (Eds.), Utopic dreams and apocalyptic fantasies: Critical approaches to researching video game play (pp. 59–72). Lexington Books.
22.
Lorenzo-DusN. (2009). Television discourse: Analysing language in the media. Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
MaloneyJ. (1964). Flyting: Some aspects of poetic invective debate. The Ohio State University.
24.
MavimaS. (2016). Bigger by the dozens: The prevalence of Afro-based tradition in battle rap.Journal of Hip Hop Studies, 3(1), 86–105.
MillsC. B.CarwileA. M. (2009). The good, the bad, and the borderline: Separating teasing from bullying.Communication Education, 58(2), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520902783666
27.
Moik, C. (2007). Verbal duelling: A battle of words from Beowulf to cyberspace. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(1), 66–94.
28.
MortensenT.JørgensenK. (2020). The paradox of transgression in games. Routledge.
29.
OlahA. R.DillardA. M.GomezS. J. (2024). Party games and prejudice: Are these cards against humanity?.HUMOR, 37(3), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2023-0133
30.
Parks, W. (1987). The flyting speech in traditional heroic narrative. Neophilologus, 71(2), 285–295.
31.
PassaD. (2023). ‘Reading is what? Fundamental!’: Reversed (im)politeness in RuPaul’s drag race.Linguae & Rivista di lingue e culture moderne, 23(1), 143–161.
32.
PodbojM. (2023). ‘Haute couture? More like haute glue!’: The discourse of the ‘Reading challenge’ in RuPaul’s Drag Race.Journal of Language and Sexuality, 12(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.21013.pod
RuPaulA. C. (2009). RuPaul’s Drag Race. Logo TV, VH1, MTV.
35.
SalemN. M. (2017). Understanding humor, expressions, profanity, and cartoons in a bilingual and bi-cultural context [Master’s thesis]. University of Toledo.
36.
SchechnerR. (2017). Performance studies: An introduction. Routledge.
SmithermanG. (2006). Word from the mother. Routledge.
39.
SteerO. L.BettsL. R.BaguleyT.BinderJ. F. (2020). ‘I feel like everyone does it’—Adolescents’ perceptions and awareness of the association between humour, banter, and cyberbullying.Computers in Human Behavior, 108, Article 106297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106297
40.
StenrosJ. (2014). In defence of a magic circle: The social, mental and cultural boundaries of play.Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.26503/todigra.v1i2.10
41.
StenrosJ. (2019). Guided by transgression: Defying norms as an integral part of play. In K. Jørgensen & F. Karlsen (Eds.), Transgression in games and play (pp. 13–25). MIT Press.
42.
TekinbasK. S.ZimmermanE. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT Press.
43.
VossenE. (2018). The magic circle and consent in gaming practices. In GrayK. L.VoorheesG.VossenE. (Eds.), Feminism in play (pp. 205–220). Springer International Publishing.
44.
WangJ.IannottiR. J.NanselT. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber.Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
45.
WaszkiewiczA. (2024). Metagames: Games about games. Routledge advances in game studies. Routledge.
46.
WeinrebB. I. (2020). Esports and harassment: Analyzing player protections in a Hostile work environment. California Western Law Review, 57(2), Article 14.
47.
ZuloagaM. B. (2024). A typology of insults. In CruschinaS. (Ed.), An investigation of hate speech in Italian: Use, identification, and perception (pp. 57–110). Helsinki University Press.
48.
Inkster Studios. (2015). F*ck The Game. VR Distribution.
49.
Jerry Media. (2016). What Do You Meme? What Do You Meme. LLC.
50.
LucasArts. (1997) The Curse of Monkey Island. LucasArts.
51.
LucasArts. (2000) Escape from Monkey Island. LucasArts.
52.
Lucasfilm Games. (1990) The Secret of Monkey Island. Lucasfilm Games.
