Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow

In Zevin's novel, games are not a retreat from intimacy but its most precise and honest language.

Play as a Form of Love

Most narratives treat games as escapism, a flight from real feeling. Zevin inverts this entirely. For her characters, sitting down to play together is the closest they come to saying what they cannot say aloud.

The novel argues that games carry emotional content that ordinary speech fumbles. To offer someone a controller is to offer them access to your interior world, your logic, your imagination, your rules for how things should work.

Why This Idea Matters

Zevin is writing about people who are exceptionally gifted with systems and exceptionally clumsy with declarations. Games become the medium that fits them precisely, the way poetry fits a different kind of person.

This reframes what the reader watches the characters do together. Every collaborative session, every act of teaching someone a game or learning one from them, carries relational weight.

The Central Mechanism

Games create what ordinary socializing rarely does: a shared rule-set that both players inhabit equally. Inside that space, hierarchy softens, self-consciousness drops, and people reveal how they think under pressure, how they handle failure, whether they help or compete.

A worked example: when one person teaches another a game they love, they are not just transmitting rules. They are saying, here is something that matters to me, here is how I see problems, here is what I find beautiful. The learner who takes it seriously is accepting all of that.

The Mistake Readers Make

The single most important application for a reader: treat every game moment as an emotional scene. Ask what the characters are exchanging, risking, or withholding through the game rather than despite it.

Depth of the Mechanism

Zevin's insight goes deeper than shared interest. Games impose vulnerability in a specific way: you cannot hide behind politeness once you are playing. Your decisions are visible, your reactions are immediate, your skill or confusion is right there.

Ludic intimacy

=

The closeness that forms specifically through shared play, shaped by its rules and stakes.

Rule-set as self-disclosure

=

The act of sharing a game you love as an implicit map of your values and imagination.

Asymmetric play

=

Moments when one person holds more mastery than the other, creating a care dynamic.

Asymmetric play is especially rich in the novel. When one character is more skilled, they must decide whether to crush or nurture the other. That decision reveals character more sharply than almost any dialogue could.

A Contrasting Example

Consider the difference between playing a game cooperatively and competing. In cooperation, the players share a failure condition: they go down together or survive together. In competition, each player is also reading the other, trying to anticipate and outmaneuver.

Both modes generate intimacy, but of opposite textures: cooperation builds trust, competition builds a particular kind of tense, electric knowledge of the other person.

When the Idea Holds and Breaks

This model of games as intimacy holds when both people are genuinely present. It breaks when one person is performing rather than playing, going through the motions to please someone rather than actually inhabiting the game. In those moments, play becomes a kind of lie, and the novel notices that too.

The idea also holds most strongly for games that require interpretation and decision, not pure reflex. Games that demand you read another person, predict them, or build something with them carry more relational content than games of pure chance.

Second-Order Implications

If games are a legitimate language of intimacy, then making a game together, which the central characters do, is an act of the most sustained and serious love the novel contains. It is not just playing in someone's world but building a world together and inviting others to live in it.

This raises a question the novel holds open: can the creative product of a relationship outlast the relationship itself? A game made together persists. Players who never knew the makers can enter it. This gives ludic intimacy a dimension that conversation lacks, a kind of durability and transmissibility.

Edge Cases and Exceptions

The novel does not romanticize games uncritically. Play can also be a place to hide. A character who retreats into games to avoid a direct emotional confrontation is using the language of intimacy as a wall. Zevin is honest that the same medium that enables connection can also enable avoidance.

• Games offer plausible deniability: feelings expressed through play can be retracted as just gameplay.
• Skill gaps can become power imbalances that strain rather than deepen connection.
• Obsessive immersion in game-making can crowd out the direct relational attention a person also needs.
• A shared game world can become a shared illusion that delays rather than builds real understanding.

Objections and Replies

A skeptical reader might argue that the novel simply romanticizes the hobbies of its protagonists, dressing up geek culture in literary significance.

The reply is that Zevin is not claiming games are uniquely superior; she is claiming they are sufficient, that they can carry the full weight of love and grief and longing. The novel would work the same way if the characters were musicians or painters.

What matters is the shared devotion to a made thing.

A second objection: intimacy built through games is shallow compared to intimacy built through suffering together or through verbal confession. The novel's answer is embedded in what it shows rather than argues: the characters' richest moments of mutual recognition happen inside play or through the act of making games.

Depth is not a function of the medium but of the attention and risk both people bring to it.