One game that my family likes to play is Apples to Apples™. My youngest, however, stipulates that simple conventional logic will make the game boring and encourages us to stretch ourselves when comparing apples to, say, round objects that could potentially hit physicists on the head when they’re out and about trying to figure out something as heavy as gravity.
If you’ve never played the game, here’s a little background: During each round, one player gets a card with an adjective and is the judge. After the adjective is read aloud, the other players chose one of their five cards with nouns or concepts that most closely match the adjective. In our family, brief arguments can be given in support of the card you have chosen.
When my youngest is judge, you never know how cards will be judged. I remember ‘carrots’ once winning out over ‘Harry Potter’ for ‘magical’, although I can’t remember why.
The other night, I was ‘judge’, holding the card ‘honest’. My older son had the “Martin Luther King, Jr.” card, which should have been a slam dunk. My younger son played the “glass” card, arguing “What could be more honest than glass? You can see straight through it? It can’t hide anything.”
Similarly, when my husband was judge, the adjective was ‘lazy’. With a hoot, I played the ‘brothers’ card out of my hand, and enjoyed watching my husband smother a grin. But I was outdone by my twelve-year old, who played the ‘toothpaste’ card and argued, “What could be more lazy than toothpaste? It won’t even come out of the tube unless you squeeze it?”
I know that there are great things in the future for Mr. Convoluted Logic. I just can’t predict what that future will be.
© Laura Hedgecock 2009