Playful Fandom: Gaming, Media and the Ludic Dimensions of Textual Poaching

Mavridou argues that fandom has a ludic dimension that deserves study from a game studies perspective, and that fan studies and game studies would benefit from sharing theory and methods. Both are young, interdisciplinary fields burdened by perceptions of triviality and definitional ambiguity, which gives them common cause. Drawing on Salen and Zimmerman's definition of play as "free movement within a more rigid structure," chosen because it is less vulnerable to criticism than the formulations of Huizinga or Caillois, she contends that fandom can appear not only as abstract play but as a game with players, rules, conflict, and outcomes. Jenkins's account of "spoilers" in the Survivor fandom serves as a key example.

Central to the argument is the concept of "resistant play," which recasts fan resistance to media industry control as playful rather than radically opposed to the structures fandom depends on. Fan practices such as fan fiction, dōjinshi, cosplay, game hacking, "superplay," and machinima mirror theatrical and ludic activity through appropriation and remixing. This framing may help resolve tensions in fan studies, including Matt Hills's question of how fans can be both consumers and resisters.

The literature review finds that fandom scholars including Jenkins, Hills, Gray, and Harrington and Bielby have only touched on play, often through Winnicott's "transitional object," while game scholars such as Consalvo, Holmquest, Jones, and Sotamaa have examined the fannish side of gaming. Neither field has explored the intersection in depth.

The conclusion holds that treating fans as players and gamers as fans can illuminate productive playfulness, gamer identity (as in #gamergate), and metatextual engagement within games. The supporting bibliography reflects an interdisciplinary foundation spanning game studies, participatory culture, copyright and remix law, and game theory, with a few ludographic references such as Katamari Damacy and Silent Hill Downpour. The argument is theoretical rather than empirical and is not tied to a specific region or time period.