skip to main content
10.1145/3555858.3555884acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Manifesting Desire via Playful Mechanics in Tarot Readings

Published:04 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I analyse tarot readings and discern the game mechanics of the process. I specifically look at YouTube readings and document their ludic qualities by means of critical analysis and ethnography. I show the connection between gameness and tarot readings as a form of generating personal meaning from a system of predefined structures. Particularly, I argue that it is the ludic attributes of tarot what facilitates its therapeutic appeal as an act of self-care. I exemplify this argument by focusing on the choice-making mechanics of YouTube tarot readings. As I argue, these mechanics provide participants with the ability to manifest their desire. I draw further connections between these game mechanics, tarot, and self-care within the context of romantic love. Based on this, I finally support the ability of games to offer and sustain experiences of love due to their mechanics.

References

  1. Huson, P. 2004. Mystical origins of the tarot: from ancient roots to modern usage. Inner Traditions/Bear & Co.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Chung, D.W. and Liang, R.H., 2015. Interaction tarot: a card-based design of knowledge construction for brainstorming in HCI. In Proceedings of the 6th IASDR Conference on Design Research (IASDR 2015) (pp. 1-19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Levisohn, A. and Gromala, D., 2009. Taro (t) ception: eliciting embodied, interoceptive awareness through interactive art.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chacón, P.S. and Eger, M., 2019, August. Ex-Tarot: An extended Tarot-based narrative generation. In 2019 IV Jornadas Costarricenses de Investigación en Computación e Informática (JoCICI) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sullivan, A., Eladhari, M.P. and Cook, M., 2018, August. Tarot-based narrative generation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 1-7).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Roubira, J.L., Bonnessée, R. and Cardouat, M., 2010. Dixit. Libellud.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nevskiy, O. and Sidorenko, O. 2015. Mysterium. Libellud.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, K., 2004. Gloom. Atlas Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lambert, R., Rilstone, A. and Wallis, J., 1993. Once Upon a Time. AMIGO Spiel Freizeit GmbH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Atlus. 1996 – 2020. Persona. Atlus. Microsoft Windows.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. HAL Laboratory. 1992. Arcana. HAL Laboratory. Super NES.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Sierra On-Line. 1995. The Beast Within: A Gabriel Knight Mystery. Sierra On-Line. Microsoft Windows.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nix Hydra. 2022. The Arcana: A Mystic Romance - Love Story. Nix Hydra. Android.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Calvino, I., 2010. The castle of crossed destinies. Random House.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Malick, T. 2015. Knight of Cups. Broad Green Pictures.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Sutherland, J. and Staveley, A. 2014. The Wheel of Fortune. Installation. Burning Man Festival: Nevada, US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Thibault, M., 2015. Semiotics and Cartomancy: Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School Legacy. KOME: An International Journal of Pure Communication Inquiry, 3(2), pp.1-9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Caillois, R., 2001. Man, play, and games. University of Illinois press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Lotman, Y.M., 2011. The place of art among other modelling systems. Σημɛιωτική-Sign Systems Studies, 39(2-4), pp.249-270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Short, E. 2018. Expressive Range in Tarot Decks. Emily Short's Interactive Storytelling. <https://emshort.blog/2018/05/03/favorite-tarot-decks/> Accessed 08.04.2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jung, C.G., 2014. The archetypes and the collective unconscious. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Semetsky, I., 2006. Tarot as a projective technique. Spirituality and Health International, 7(4), pp.187-197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gulley, N., 1954. Plato's theory of recollection. The Classical Quarterly, 4(3-4), pp.194-213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Blanchot, M. and Allred, H., 1992. Glances from beyond the grave. Yale French Studies, (81), pp.151-161.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. EsoTarot. 2012. How They're Currently Feeling About You. YouTube. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIpqvDtgKCI>. Accessed 08.04.2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Aarseth, E.J., 1997. Cybertext: Perspectives on ergodic literature. JHU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Reddy, W.M., 2012. The Making of Romantic Love. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. The Gem Goddess. 2020. Who Is Your Soulmate? YouTube. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJA7WtHVnM>. Accessed 08.04.2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Huizinga, J., 2021. The Autumn of the Middle Ages. University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Rudorff, R., 1974. Knights and the Age of Chivalry. Penguin Putnam.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaeuper, R.W., 2016. Medieval Chivalry. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Snow, C. 2019. Queering the Tarot. Weiser Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ntelia, R.E., 2021. How Damsels Love: The Transgressive Pleasure of Romance. New Horizons in English Studies, 6(1), pp.146-159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Lacan, J., 1998. On feminine sexuality: The limits of love and knowledge. WW Norton & Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Chodorow, N., 1978. The reproduction of mothering. University of California press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Radway, J.A., 1983. Women read the romance: The interaction of text and context. Feminist studies, 9(1), pp.53-78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Radway Janice, A., 1991. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ntelia, R., 2020. Romantic Love in Games, Games as Romantic Love. In International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 1-4).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Tuchman, B.W., 2011. A distant mirror: The calamitous 14th century. Random House.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Berlant, L., 1998. Intimacy: A special issue. Critical inquiry, 24(2), pp.281-288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Berlant, L., 2012. Desire/love. Punctum books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Gammelgaard, J., 2011. Love, drive and desire in the works of Freud, Lacan and Proust. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 92(4), pp.963-983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    FDG '22: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
    September 2022
    664 pages
    ISBN:9781450397957
    DOI:10.1145/3555858

    Copyright © 2022 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 4 November 2022

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)59
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format