Play World: The Rise of the New Ludenic Era - Explore Next-Gen Gaming & Interactive Entertainment for Home, Office & Virtual Reality Experiences

This book is a great follow-on from Huizinga's masterful 'Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture'. After an introductory chapter, Combs divides his material into past, present and future. Where did play come from ('dynamics')? How are we playing now ('pragmatics')? What could our play-world look like in the not-too-distant future ('futuristics')?The playful introduction states Combs' central thesis: "we are entering a new phase of history characterized by so much play that we can deem it a play world" (20). Of note for me here are Combs' citation of Csikszentmihalyi's work on 'flow' ("deep play") and play's subversive power against the forces of social constraint (especially in school). I particularly appreciated his attempt to capture the essence of play in the phrase "as if" (9-10). This creates the frame, the magic circle, the drama of the act of play.Instead of summarising each of these sections, as I had intended to do, I'd like to focus on a flaw instead. Combs underestimates, even underplays, the serious tones of our modern age. He charts an upwardly climbing trajectory for ludenic possibilities from the ghastly puritans to our present gamers. It is a narrative of steadily decreasing heaviness/earnestness, and increasing play. My problem is that much of this does not comport with my experience. As a citizen of the UK in the early 21st century, I hear the grinding sermons of neo-puritanism daily.Let me mention a few phrases. Political correctness. Social justice. Relative poverty. Corporate social responsibility. Corporate raiding. Fair trade. Discrimination and diversity. Affirmative action. Multi-culturalism. Whistleblowing. Freedom of information. Sexual harassment. Health and safety. Insider trading. Animal rights. Offender rehabilitation. War on terror. Ecological terrorism.My point has nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of any of these concepts or movements. My only point here is that they are heavy (i.e. non-playful) and that they are inescapable. They saturate all forms of media here. I sense their presence everywhere, from high-minded artistic efforts, to middlebrow newspapers and radio programmes, to populist soap story lines and Hollywood movies.I feel myself surrounded, daily, by this kind of modern, secular Puritanism. I feel 'preached at' by the media. I feel mentally and verbally restrained. I feel encircled by what Combs calls 'seriosity'. Even stand-up comedians, now that sexism and racism are off the menu, feel the need to make anti-sexist and anti-racist gags, proving that they're on-side now. We don't use terms like 'wicked' and 'ungodly' anymore; instead, we have 'inappropriate' and 'offensive'.Do I exaggerate? This very day, as I write and publish this review, there is an article on the BBC website ("BBC 'got it wrong' over Balding gag") that illustrates my point. The BBC has apologised for comments made on a comedy quiz show about curing lesbianism. The comments were made during a game called Defend the Indefensible as part of the live show Fighting Talk. Five people complained. The BBC immediately apologised and claimed the comment was 'inappropriate'. Context was relevant; ideology is everything.Combs points out that the political correctness of the 'joke police' exists just as much on liberal campus universities as rural Christian schools or communist state schools (13). His flaw is to limit this PC attitude to the 'popular level' (63) whereas for me it lives primarily at the state and legal levels. If, as he claims, in our emerging play culture, "all serious agendas and people are subjected to comic ridicule," then, in the UK at least, we still have a long way to go. Those 'funny people' of the 60's might have shaken up various forms of institutional seriousness (94), but they simply replaced it with others. The 'virtue industry' I experience on this side of the Atlantic is not Combs' forces of 'neoconservatism and evangelism' (119) but the identity politics and cultural Marxism of the New Left i.e. our contemporary 'neo-Puritans' (51, 126).Speaking of politics, I deeply appreciate Combs' insight on the link between play and the 'libertarian impulse' (50-1). The political implications and applications of a play agenda must be towards an increase in personal choice and individual freedom. It's a virtuous circle: "the enchanting fulfilments of play gives associative support to the desire to create the wealth to afford play and for the liberty to choose play" (145).Even more impressive is Combs' on-the-button prophecy about another, possible greater threat to the advancement of a play world than the political - the economic. If money makes a basis for play, then lack of money taketh away. But once a certain level of play expectancy, indeed play rights, have been achieved in a country, then woe betide the government what withdraws them. "The politics of play means that it is difficult to enforce and sustain a regime of austerity" (106). Economic scarcity is the greatest barrier to achieving the play world Combs envisages (124-5). But so powerful does he believe the play life to be in us, that it can even overcome out present 'environmental strain and recessions' (131) by the sheer force of cultural hope.Play World is peppered with juicy morsels. Here are a few.Combs links play to magic (12, 90, 144-5) and even myth (20, 142). "The ontological myth of the coming era will be pursuing happiness, and the cosmopolitan world culture will tend to define happiness and the willingness and ability to have fun...Play becomes a myth of live by, acquiring the ontological status of an ethic and a purpose: play is by nature good."Play finds its origins in the Dionysian cults (19), and works by allowing the `pleasure principle' to be incorporated into civilization, so that "the Dionysian expression of joy and even ecstasy is not a threat but a promise." As to the problems of how to distinguish good play from bad play, of help is Nietzsche's distinction between the Apollonian and the Dionysian (147-8), and the balance between mental and bodily play that this division suggests, thereby limiting Dionysian excesses (119).Combs makes some telling literary references throughout his book. One is a frequent reference to Huxley's Brave New World as the usual example of a play/pleasure world gone horribly wrong. He also plays a nice game of 2084, updating Orwell in a more optimistic mood (131). I had never heard of Bernard de Mandeville's The Fable of the Bees (39) but I look forward to acquainting myself with it and its 'invisible hand' / 'greed is good' type thesis.There are interesting comments on the neofudalism of Star Wars (118), the fun of joining a cult (134), and the rise of the play ethic over the work ethic (73). Huizinga's 'Puerilism' - too much bad play - gets a mention (121), but Combs instead targets 'Healthism' (60, 126), whereby "moral judgments are legislated or informally imposed with the authority of public health..." (60). Hear, hear! But isn't it those 60's, liberal, ex-hippies who lie behind this?Anyway, enough politics, even if we do shift to seeing it as a comedy of manners (136)! Play World is an optimistic, refreshing read. Each successive chapter improves on the last. It's a treat to read a book about play published in the 21st century that isn't obsessed with computer games and technology but that takes a wider view, that doesn't shy away from the deeper issues, and that is so beautifully written.