David Denby, critic for The New Yorker has recently penned a book condemning snark.  Snark, for those of you who haven’t suffered it, is in Denby’s words, “A tone of teasing, snide, undermining abuse, nasty and knowing, that is spreading like pinkeye through the media and threatening to take over how Americans converse with each other and what they can count on as true.”  In short, Denby seems to be arguing for some vision of a more lukewarm–what he might describe as more civil–discourse.

Let me admit to two biases right now.  First, by anyone’s measure (certainly mine) I’m more than a bit on the snarky side.  I don’t hold much in reverence–pretty much everything is fair game as far as I’m concerned.  And, well not to be boastful, but I can be fairly witty on a good day.  Secondly, I haven’t read Denby’s book, although I did hear him discussing his thesis on NPR this week.  So, at the risk of sounding like one of those people who wants to burn Harry Potter without having giving it a good, long, study–I’d like to challenge Denby’s premise.

How is it that he classifies Maureen Dowd (a personal hero of mine) as snarky, but Jon Stewart escapes that branding?  Both, in my opinion, are brilliant, ascerbic, persuasive, well-informed, and often hysterically funny.  Both tackle difficult political issues and prominent public figures.  Each seems to me equally efficient and articulate in their critical endeavors to cut those who so richly deserve it down to size.  One is civil while the other is snarky?  Doesn’t hold water for me.

I do think Denby’s onto something, but, at least at first glance, I think his criticism is misplaced.  Certainly, I am appalled by the subterranean level of discourse that you often find on most internet blogs and message boards (check some of the largely illiterate readers’ responses on Kansas.com if you need proof).  I don’t think it’s snark that’s the problem.  Some of our most often-quoted writers and thinkers were pretty darn snarky by Denby’s definition.  Read any Dorothy Parker recently?  Oscar Wilde?  William F. Buckley, Jr. even had his moments.  I call this level of discourse brilliant and witty.

What does degrade our national conversation is anonymity.  I think the ability to spew lies, misinterpretation and character assassination on the internet without so much as signing your name to it is inexcusable.  It’s cowardly.  It’s intellectually bankrupt.  It reminds me of the mean kid in grade school who would write “you stink” on a grimy piece of paper and leave it on your desk during recess.  Much of what passes for “discussion” on websites is mired in 2nd grade intellect and maturity.

So let’s not condemn irreverence and biting wit.  Certainly, it seems that there’s precious little in our country to be reverent about right now, and we might as well have a laugh about it before we all queue up for the food stamp line.  Maybe Denby gets around to making this distinction in his book.  I hope so.  He claims snark is for amateurs.  I argue that it just takes an expert to do it well.

Tags: criticism, David Denby, snark, social commentary

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pm and is filed under Denice Bruce. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.