One of the connective threads weaving through all these readings seems to be this idea of the possibility for collaboration, community, and interactivity in digital spaces. Thomas Derrick details an interactive game for composition students that, he claims, makes use of computers as a means of utilizing the “concept of interactivity” in a way that helps them improve their thinking and writing together (45). Margaret Daisley considers the manner in which play affects the way we think about “computer-mediated communication” (107). Haas and Gardner believe the use of graphical MOOs in composition can be valuable in that it may “provide a better means of communication for students because they incorporate not only a familiar, easy-to-use interface, but also provide a better sense of presence with other users” (356). And finally, Beth Kolko works to complicate our understanding of electronic discourse through her discussion of intellectual property in collaborative virtual spaces.

And as Daisley asserts, something that makes the collaboration that occurs in such spaces worth considering is that this interactivity is characterized by its playfulness, and I wonder how we might unpack this intersection of play and collaborative composition as a potential part of pedagogical practices. Are the types of play discussed in these readings really all that playful? Are there better ways for us to be thinking about how to incorporate games and play into our classes? How do we deal with the potential downsides, the times during which “the ‘fun’ gets out of hand” (Daisley 107)? And what are the stakes for us when thinking about these things?

Indeed, I think that some of Daisley’s questions regarding our roles as teachers in all this bear repeating: “Who makes the playground of language, the game of literacy safe? Or, is ‘safety’ always the ideal to shoot for when it comes to language use?” (116). I wonder how we, as writing instructors, navigate language and play in a way that acknowledges “the very real ways virtual space dissolves the boundaries of authorial self and other and reflect[s] these new perspectives in the definitions we generate” (Kolko 180).