Girs/Boys just want to have fun? or "the deeper meaning" of it all?

Today I participated in a PhD prelim exam in which one of the topics was the way that the literary establishment (critics, writers themselves, publishers) thinks about quality and the way fans think about quality. The goal of the discussion was not to decide who was right, but to talk about how we are and are not aware of how these dynamics interact.

I think it's safe to say that fandom is about pleasure and fun. At times the pleasure is in the deeper thinking, and at times it's just about itself. Fresca feeds my reawakened Trekkie jones by revealing the existence of the blog "Look At His Butt" (that would be William Shatner's butt!), a compendium of all things Star Trek, hosted by bloggers LT and JK, who "talk Trek" on their podcasts (their inaugural podcast from 2005 is here). I think it's safe to say that this is a site that celebrates fun, but also engages in conversation about the funness of the fun.

Then there's the testiness of the critics who are worried that popular tastes are dumbing us down. TaNahesi Coates responds to a great essay by Alyssa Rosenberg called "The Fanboys of Summer" about the summer blockbuster sci-fi/comic hero movies. His essay "The Deeper Meaning of Star Trek/Wolverine/Terminator" contrasts what the critics think to what the fans want. What is it that we want from so-called "genre" books or movies? Whatever it was when we were teenagers, it might be different for us now as older adults.