Response: What is Fun?

Fun is a word I haven’t spent very much time contemplating. It’s an easy response to any “How was — — ?”. Ian Bogost dives deep into “fun” and what it is beyond an empty sentiment and overgeneralized term used with games. What does fun really mean? I understand the “types of fun” we’ve gone over in class, but defining fun itself is difficult.

Bogost starts with “foolishness” as a basis for fun. He also has a lot of critiques for Mary Poppins and her idea of “fun” that arises from ourselves, but can’t be a natural part of a situation. Mary Poppins teaches that we have to “find” fun. Bogost offers a new view: what if fun comes from wretchedness? What if fun is broccoli without chocolate?

I found it really interesting to consider fun not as a diversion but as a structured effect that can be improved by crafting circumstances. I’m not sure if I agree that fun can’t be added to a situation. Maybe this is due to my Mary Poppins childhood, but my frame of fun is still something that is more emergent than organized. I can see his point of taking fun seriously and having crafts “earn” fun. However, does this necessarily mean that it can’t be fostered as well as discovered?

When used colloquially, I disagree that using “fun” means that you respect something. People often toss around the word “fun” as a placeholder for other, more serious emotions. Perhaps we should use “fun” more sparingly for things that truly deserve its classification — something that requires devotion, respect, serious dedication, and foolishness.