Abstract
Paratext is a frequently used concept in game studies, mentioned approximately 300 times in the 2010s alone. However, it is not Gérard Genette's original definition from 1982, but rather the expanded version proposed by Mia Consalvo in 2007 that is used in 70 percent of the 235 analyzed academic texts written in English and published between 1997 and 2019.
This article provides a critical theoretical review of current paratextual scholarship and uses citation analysis to quantify the existence and impact of three different approaches to paratext: original, expanded, and reduced. In particular, the expanded framework, which is, according to the analysis, usually attributed to Consalvo, tends to be too all-encompassing by stripping away the original limitation on authorship of paratextual elements and instead resembles the screen studies term cultural epiphenomena.
In the article, I highlight the differences between the three frameworks and track the frequency of their use in game studies scholarship. Additionally, I propose a methodological intervention by suggesting to avoid the reductive term "paratext" in the sense of a category of texts, which implies a rigid textual hierarchy.
Instead I recommend treating paratextuality as a link between a text and the surrounding socio-historical reality, emphasizing that paratextuality is often accompanied by other (trans)textual qualities.