Responses to “Subversion in the City” and “Playing for Power”

“Subversion in the City”

In the first paragraph, tflurry gives story-like examples of subversion. Then, she delves into more serious definitions of it (that of the OED, Flanagan, and her own). With her own definition of subversion, tflurry argues that subversion is “the means and result” of any sort of deviation from the norm. To me, tflurry’s first paragraph is both playful and critical. In the beginning, tflurry playfully draws me into her interpretation of subversion; she excites my imagination and then surprises me with several definitions of subversion. These definitions provide a buffer zone for tflurry’s next pursuit: to both analyze subversion and provoke the reader to analyze it as well.

“Playing for Power”

In mmanzone’s first paragraph, mmanzone references a previous paper and reflects that her experiences mirror both Flanagan’s “critical play” and Smith’s “four different types of play.” The first paragraph arises my curiosity because I do not know mmanzone’s earlier paper and Smith’s different types of play. Mmanzone makes me play by stating these various forms of play and, in doing so, asks me to play with play; mmanzone leads me to consider all of these types and wonder if play expands much further than I previously thought.