Reading Callois' own views and opinions on the nature of play and his subsequent list of defining terms for the activity of play, there were several points that struck me as odd. The very first definition he gives is that play is an activity that must be free, a conscious decision on the part of the player to participate and restrict oneself to the ruleset laid down to facilitate play.
This assertion bugged me, for surely he was assuming that all people will react to different situations in the same way, looking at players as a whole rather than a collection of individuals. However, no two people are the same and so will not react similarly in all things. Callois' definition in this way seemed to also exclude a certain basis of enjoyment; what he constitutes as enjoyment is unexplained.
Enjoyment is intrinsically linked with fun; for something to be enjoyable, it must be fun, the type of fun is unimportant, merely that it exists is enough to entice a player, whether it produces thrill, triumph, excitement or any number of reactions.
So, no two people will respond exactly the same way as their own definitions of what they find fun will always differ subtly. Therefore, how can play be defined as a purely consensual activity when the very idea of a lack of consensus on participation in an activity, in a game, may be the driving force for producing the fun that a player will find enjoyment in?
Not that the idea of play being a free choice is wrong, but I believe that it may not be correct for everyone. Certainly a majority of people dislike the idea of being trapped in any way, hence why things such as blackmail are illegal, but there will always be a minority for which the inability to escape a game until a certain condition is met facilitates their enjoyment of said activity.
Another aspect of play that Callois attempted to define which seemed lacking was his idea that play is completely unproductive. I believe that concessions must be made for the time period in which he produced his book for at the time there was a lull in the type of play that comes to mind when he mentions the lack of a change in situation from the result of play.
The change in situation he declares cannot be present from the result of play relates to real life, it is the idea that playing a game cannot result in a change in situation for the players beyond the exchange of property. Gambling games seem to defy this logic, when in fact the net gain and loss of wealth over time based purely on the games found within a casino is surprisingly stable (casinoes make most of their money through the same mechanic as tourism; it is not the games that the money is made from, but the purchasing of commodities and such.)
Nowadays, gaming can certainly result in the acquisition of wealth and assets outside of the seperate reality produced by a game, however, Callois asserts that since the activity is not purely recreational, it is no longer play that a person engages in but work. While I am inclined to agree, I do not believe that work and play are not so seperate, for they both require similar efforts and mindsets to accomplish to a satisfactory level.
Callois believes that a game is a construct that is designed to be enojyed by its players, and thus they play it. However, as I said before, people are different, and there are certainly individuals out there who enjoy their work. If someone enjoys their work, does that make it a game? And if someone does not enjoy a game, does it become work? At what point do the two become interchangeable when they can both produce similar results in the enjoyment of a person and in their acquisition of monetary wealth and assets which change their real life situation?
That is the modern aspect to Callois' definition that I feel doesn't particularly fit, but there is a more historical aspect to it as well.
At a time when Monarchy and nobility purely ruled entire countries, a time primarily before the French Revolution, nobles of all stripes engaged in what was known as The Game. Surely a game needs players, and if they are called players then what can they do but play?
The Game effectively constituted the entire basis of social interaction between people in positions of power, constantly using deception and cunning to play the game and outsmart their opponenets, the objective being to become the most powerful. The powerful played their game, and it led to many famous real life situations, such as the assassinations of Julius Caesar and Thomas Becket, both at the hands of political machinations.
What I'm trying to say is that, certainly in medieval times, Callois' description of play as something that is unproductive would not have been appropriate. Situations found in history that are parallels with events in the modern age were viewed as a game back then, although that isn't the case in this day and age.
