Last class, we performed skits for the class of what we interpreted as play. In one skit, there were four children who were going to play a make believe game. However, they argued on who got to be who and changed their minds about which character they wanted to be. Similarly, in another skit, there were three children who pretended to Beyoncé, Joan of Arc, and a princess. These make believe games made up most of playing for many children, including me. 

In the essay, “Playing in Industrial Ruins: Interrogating Teleological Understandings of Play in Spaces of Material Alterity and Low Surveillance,” Edensor and three other authors argue that

an attentiveness to playfulness in industrial ruins offers an opportunity to think about the role of ‘wild’ spaces within the contemporary city, and the potential ‘wildness’ present in more managed urban spaces which might offer possibilities for playful transformation (77).

      Henig’s “Taking Play Seriously” assures the main positive effects of play on aspects of neurological growth and physical preparation in response of future but misses to develop deeply on the negative “side effects” of play.

       From dorothy kim’s post on Serendip, her recalls of childhood reflect most parents’ concern- kids get too much time for play. There is also arguments about time dispensed on play that “psychologists complain that overscheduled kids have no time left for the real business of childhood: idle, creative, unstructured free play.”(Henig, 1) However, what parents worry about is not exactly the time amount their kids put into play, but the “direction”, which I refer abstractly, kids are playing towards.