Papercuts: A Blessing in a Box

If you’ve spent any time on Second Laird, you might be familiar with the impressive pile of English-themed games and puzzles proudly displayed in the lounge. Little did you know that the Laird Collection only scratches the surface. This midterm break, a certain pair of edz meandered around town and found themselves at Content Books, the hangout of choice for every Carleton English major. While said edz were being totally cool and literary and pretending not to notice the professors spotted in downtown NoFo, we stumbled upon a hidden gem. Yes, on that blessèd day, a higher being gave us Papercuts. (One word, capital P, italicized. Not literal paper cuts. Just to be clear.)

What is Papercuts, you ask? It is a brilliant game reminiscent of classic crowd pleaser and nostalgic icon Apples to Apples (or, if you’re feeling more risqué, Cards Against Humanity). The rules are simple: each player gets eight cards with literary references. One player is the Editor, whose job is to play a question card, invariably also some kind of literary reference (obvs). The other players select the card they believe to provide the best/funniest/most cleverest (I said it) response to the question. The Editor then reads the cards, editing the grammar in real time to match the question, and picks a favorite. The winner gets a point, and a new round begins.

Do we recognize the irony in going to a bookstore as English majors and buying not a single book? Certainly. And yet we quickly discovered that Papercuts is an education in a box. (Which begs the uncomfortable question—why pay *gag* $280,000 for Carleton when you could just get Papercuts for $22.50? Thus begins a mass exodus from our beautiful little bovine SLAC.) Indeed, when the four of us sat down for game night, we realized just how much we have left to learn. We scoured the internet to find the source texts for obscure literary references. We discovered authors lost to time and Florida. We engaged in critical peer education, as THREE of the participants had never even HEARD of Thomas Pynchon. Sigh.

Of course, Carleton’s motto is “Work Hard / Play Hard” [line break added]. And as hard as Papercuts made us work, we played even harder. SO. Who were the players?

• Alexa Kong. Bio major. Cat owner extraordinaire.
• Hannah Rosenberg. History major. Eater of chocolate and wearer of hats.
• Sophia Heidebrecht. English major. Canadian.
• Andriana Taratsas. English major. Enough said.

Heidebrecht and Taratsas had the obvious advantage, considering Laird is their natural habitat and they possess an almost troll-like obsession with all things books. And yet Kong and Rosenberg undoubtedly held their own. While the Miscellany edz pulled through and tied at 11 points each for the lead, Kong and Rosenberg were formidable opponents, offering strong representation for the bio and history departments. Indeed, the competition was fierce. Heidebrecht’s Hail Mary in the fourth quarter ultimately allowed her to pull ahead and advance to the playoffs (date TBD). Taratsas, meanwhile, had a string of luck early on with a series of touchdowns (n., the act of touching down a winning card to the ground).

And there were moments throughout that were simply priceless. Let’s recap.

• The Miscellany edz took great joy in hosting an impromptu Shakespeare lesson when one of them (who shall remain nameless) played the answer card “the beast with two backs.” Rosenberg, history major that she is, asked the reasonable question, “What, like a camel?” And was thus perplexed and peeved when the edz proceeded to cackle with glee. (If you are curious, look it up. We would very much like to keep our jobs.)
• Later, tension ran high when an upset nearly led to a fight on the field. Taratsas played “Margaret Atwood” in response to the question card “Are you there God? It’s Me, _______________.” And LOST! (Please, in the comments, do voice your agreement about the absolute injustice of it all. She would very much like outsiders’ opinions to strengthen her case as she appeals the decision.)
• It was a bad night for James Joyce and white women in publishing. We’d rather not elaborate, if it’s all the same to you.

Despite the petty squabbling and the literary denigration and the sex jokes (or rather, because of the sex jokes), the game was fantastic. We LOVED Papercuts. Instead of cows, colleges, and contentment, our game night featured cats, candy, and camaraderie. It was glorious. And so fun, in fact, that we propose a Lairdwide Papercuts night. We would come bearing game and snack. (Singular intentional. We are broke college students.) Interested? Let us know in the comments below. (And also don’t forget to share your thoughts about the Margaret Atwood thing. That’s very important.)