About the book

Why so many games? Why not more on how to create your own?

t was a trade off - one that I really had trouble with all through the project. The publisher, knowing the market better than I, was really clear about the need for lots of games. I thought long and hard and longer and harder. I so much wanted to make something that would enter the main stream, and still convey the spirit of invention. So, I came up with a compromise that may or may not work: first, I called these games "demonstration games" and put them in a section called "The Junkmasters' Guide" - I decided to create as many of these as I could - I originally came up with over 100 (about 75 made it into the book). I figured if I made a LOT of games, then readers would be less inclined to take any one of the games especially seriously. Those who understood the idea and were ready to create their own would be able to use the games as inspirations - samples of the many possibilities. Those who didn't would at least have some sport-like games to play that would be semi-obviously not to be taken too seriously.

It was a difficult compromise to make. But I think the correct one after all. I'll tell you what gave me my first clue: as you know, there's a "hall of fame" that lists some of the wacky new sport-like things people do around the world. There's a prominent image of someone playing baseball with a frying pan. Recently, a local recreation supervisor expressed interest in the concept and asked someone on his staff to look at the website and try out the idea. The person called me to ask me what kind of frying pan I thought would be better - cast iron or aluminum.

Slowly, I've come to accept that the games themselves are going to have to carry the message - not any one of them, but a proliferation of them. My hope is to nurture that proliferation as much as possible via the website and subsequent publications (it should only happen). In my field tests so far, I've found that the games do work - that is, they do invite play and tend to level the playing field. People even seem to feel free to change the rules a bit if things don't work out smoothly - which is what really restores my faith about this whole project.

As understandably reluctant as I was to go this route, I have come to accept the wisdom of it after all. The worse case scenario is that readers will not feel they can invent their own sports and must totally rely on what they find in the book or on the website. But even if this happens, they'll still be playing games that are a little too obviously fun to be taken as seriously as "real" sports.

All my career I've been plagued by being too far ahead of my time. The older I get, the more I am able to admit to myself just how far that is. My hope with this book is to give something to the world that invites more people to have fun. If they also get in to making up their own sports, then I've really succeeded. But even if they only play the games in the book, they will at least not take them as seriously. And that, too, will be a success.

Hey, I love your Slanted High Bar idea. Is it OK if I use it in my classes?

The Slanted High Bar concept was inspired by a physical educator named Muska Mosston, who useds a similar concept he called "The Slanty Rope " You can find more about him in this discussion by Steve Stork: "Mosston and Ashworth (1986) suggest in their 'slanty rope' theory that, given options, children will choose that which is maximally challenging but at which they can also be successful. In gymnastics classes this can mean offering students a choice of rolling in different body shapes (tuck, pike, straddle), or from different heights (squat, handstand, dive) As long as the teacher acknowledges each child's choices and execution quality, there should be little concern about peer comparisons."

email your questions and comments to