That’s All Folks: My Defense and a Few Final Thoughts

I defended my dissertation on Friday, and it went great. I was incredibly nervous leading up to it, but once the discussion started, I relaxed and actually had a really good time. I got a lot of kind words, especially for bringing together art history and video games in the way I did. Of course, there was also some critique, and rightly so. While I naturally have my own views on these points, I’ll share a few reflections here. Just a heads-up: these are based on my own memory, and I didn’t take notes during the defense, so others might remember things a bit differently. That said: I passed, and the examining committee was unanimous in their approval. That’s what matters most!

1. The theory chapter is weak

Yes, fair enough. A lot of the theory I work with shows up later in the book, rather than being neatly presented in the introductory chapter, as the traditional dissertation format dictates. Typically, you’re expected to lay out the theory first and then “apply” it in the analysis. I don’t really do that. And my opponent was absolutely right to point it out.

But I have my reasons. I honestly don’t like the format that treats theory like a separate layer to be applied afterward, like a band-aid on top of observations. I believe that theory and empirical material should live and breathe together throughout a text. So that’s how I wrote it.

2. I use old theory and old theory comes with outdated views

Also true. I knew this critique was coming, my supervisor had warned me. But I stood by my choices. I use a lot of 19th- and early 20th-century sources, and I do so deliberately. I think these texts are better in writing about places and objects, and they often show a deeper engagement with those objects than much contemporary theory, which to me sometimes seem more interested in theory itself than in what it's supposed to illuminate.

Also, let’s be honest: I find it fun. There’s something both surprising and eye-opening about looking at video games through the lens of ideas that were formed in a time that didn’t recognize popular culture, and certainly didn’t see games as a serious subject.

3. My writing is “too pedagogical”

This came up briefly, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard it. It’s probably true. I’ve spent most of my life teaching, and I’ll continue to teach. When I decided to write about games, I knew I was writing for an audience that never have played any proper games, and for any gamers who might pick up my book, I assumed they’d know very little about art history’s theoretical traditions. So I explained things. That’s pedagogical writing. I won’t stop doing it.

Sometimes it feels like the critique translates to: “you should try to be less understandable.” And I can’t really agree with that.

 

After the defense, I celebrated with sparkling wine and a mix of family, colleagues, friends, and students. About an hour later, the examining committee came back out, officially announced that I had passed and then we had a party!

In the week leading up to the defense, I received some excellent advice from people who had been through it before. I’ll pass it on in my own way:

How to do a good dissertation defense:

1. Enjoy it. It’s a rare opportunity to talk about something you know really well, in detail, with people who are genuinely interested. You’re likely the person in the room who knows the most about your topic. That’s a good place to be.
2. Treat it like improv theater. It’s a performance. Listen carefully to everything that’s said. Respond with “yes”: either “yes, and…” or “yes, but…” That will keep the conversation flowing.

That’s it. I think this will be the final post on this blog. It’s been a record of my personal journey through the writing of my dissertation, and now that part of the journey is complete. The book is available online and it's free!

Thanks to everyone who’s read, followed along, or encouraged me along the way. And thanks to Nintendo for producing the games I wrote about and love to play!

/Dr Björn Fritz