I'm up through chapter 3 in Ian Bogost's Play Anything and it's not getting better. The arguments are circuitous, often employing rhetorical devices to set up dichotomies that he can sit at the virtuous center of, even though some of the poles of his dichotomies make no sense and are weird straw-man-like constructions. Even when he says things I think I agree with (e.g. that "fun" is not identical to "pleasure" or "satisfaction") he expresses himself so obliquely that I find it hard to be sure. And I find the self-absorbed myopia of the writing to be really grating. Honestly, since it's a book about playfulness I can't entirely shake the suspicion that some of it may be intentional trolling.

By the way, if someone proposed the hypothesis: "Fun comes from the attention and care you bring to something, even stupid, seemingly boring activities", wouldn't it predict that doing your taxes is fun?

Shared publiclyView activity