The second section got me pondering all these different words and connotations for play. English, despite its complex web of possible connotation, is sometimes not as pointed as other languages, which can offer very specific words for very specific feelings. I starting thinking, for instance, maybe we (read: “we” as “some people/general we”) don’t take the potential of video games seriously because play is the verb we use, as in, we play games. Maybe if it was engagement! But we take football seriously, and basketball, and all the things, despite playing them. And what’s wrong with play, anyway? It’s more active than watch, on the face, at least, or listen. So it’s not the word, then, or its connotation, but just the way we treat games. Fair, but what to do?

Something else that I wondered about while I was reading this was how many things in my life I’ve learned through play, and how much I’ve struggled when there’s no element of play — if I’m “playing” when I make many of my vehement margin notes, or if I get through things I’m not as interested in only because I set reward benchmarks that usually involve games or thinking about games. But I’m also wondering about play-in-work scenarios for others. This semester, I did offer some games as optional “readings” for my students, and many opted out, despite being gamers. Because it wasn’t their kinds of games, or because it doesn’t feel like work to them? I wonder about the latter because often when I tell students to just “play around with [something],” they resist. Work is straightforward, linear; play in that sense is not.

Really interested in hearing the discussion on this one.