It is a struggle to put these three papers by Slade, James, and Alvarez and Phillips into a common context. Partly I feel that they are like those very humorous events in life that you cannot wait to relay to your friends. Only when you have finished your story and the friends' faces remain politely blank do you realise ‘Oh, you have to have been there’. There is a ‘have to have been there’ quality in all three papers. Together, though, they give us a demonstration of how very wide the concept of play is and how little researched is the area.

Slade's depiction of dramatic play conjures up a picture for us most vividly, perhaps. The children ‘domino marching’ we can almost see. Personally, I can smell the gym shoes. His idea that improvisation can be a chance to ‘spit out the evil’, his experience that 13-year-olds enjoy role plays about ‘Bullying, jobs, sex, relationships, interviews, how to deal with step-parents’, these may be relatively useful facts — but the shadow of his undoubtedly charismatic self looms large. He makes interesting and provocative claims but he shows little inclination to discipline his arguments or to place his observations in any wider context of other observers. Perhaps he's just being dramatic. I found myself interested in Slade's division between Projected Play, where activity centres around the objects into which action is projected, and Personal Play, which involves whole-body role play. In developmental terms, I am used to thinking of the use of symbols as a superior, more complex form of activity, whereas children I see who can only play out their games using their whole body are often less able to reflect on the action. One can see, however, that role play with room for reflection and digestion of the experience could bring the actor very close to the emotional experiences acted out.