Consider a phrase ("just a game") that's commonly used by the same public that has a "widely held but incorrect ... perception" about games Thus it's important to consider what it means to them.

I'll grant you that the phrase probably has a different connotation here than it does in the world at large. When speaking to John Q. Public, I might say, "Tigris & Euphrates is more than just a game," meaning it's more than what he probably thinks of when he hears the word "game." I mention this I would be speaking mainly to correct the widely held public perception that games are just frivolous time wasters. If some game--or some hundred-odd games--do deserve to be on a pedestal, then in some sense those games are "more than just [ordinary, not-on-a-pedestal] games."

You may find the pedestal crowded and thus be able to easily shrug all this off, but at least you seem to see my point. (Now if only I could remember what it was myself.)

Games don't have to be miles ahead of the curve. Going back to the Shakespeare analogy, suppose we agree that Hamlet deserves to be up on the proverbial pedestal, while Cymbeline doesn't. In my old U of M English department, there are still two schools of thought about it: (1) Let's teach Hamlet in a way that builds great reverence for it, so it'll be an inspiration to students; and (2) No, let's avoid teaching mere literature as if it's holy scripture or something--it's just a play, after all.

Similarly, there could be two such schools of thought about E&T: (1) E&T is such a great game, let's play and study it with great reverence, building a history and body of literature around it to rival that of chess, go, and bridge; and (2) No, that's silly--E&T is just a game, and let's just keep it on an amateur, casual, just-for-fun level where we can enjoy it without adding a lot of "baggage."

The first of these "schools of thought" does not seem to exist (or maybe I'm just overlooking it) for most of the games discussed in r.g.b. But it clearly does exist for chess, bridge, go, and a handful of other games. You don't have to search far to find some rather esoteric literature about chess or go. Maybe not to the extent of the Glass Bead Game--but tending in that direction.

I suppose the point I've been stumbling around is that I've long been a proponent of that first school of thought. At the peak of my wargaming career, some thirty years ago, I had fond hopes that AH/SPI wargames would--by the turn of the century at the latest--be as popular and highly revered as chess, bridge, or go. I started a wargame club, wrote articles for magazines and newsletters, and generally did my part to realize that dream. It seemed vastly important to me at the time (so much so that I'm now surprised to find I can look back and see it as rather silly). I was also dismayed at the time by the other school of thought--all the wargamers who seemed intent on keeping wargaming at an amateurish, anarchistic level where these wonderful games were regarded no more highly than Monopoly (maybe even less highly by John Q. Public).

I guess it's just me. I always prefer to look for the meaningful--even the sacred--in everything I'm into. It holds my interest and makes it all seem worthwhile. If I *don't* do that--if I just lighten up and have fun with the thing--the enjoyment is all too fleeting for my taste. Plenty of light-and-fleeting, just-for-fun stuff seems to come my way unbidden--so I don't have to go looking for it. Delving down and mining for those nuggets of "more than just ___," however--that's a meta-game that I find very satisfying.