Scribd
Upload
151 views

Ps Review Snark

The document summarizes David Denby's book "Snark" which examines the rise of snarky and insulting discourse online and in media. Snark refers to shallow, knowing insults that denigrate others without furthering discussion. Denby argues snark has come to dominate public conversation, stifling meaningful dialogue. While some mockery can be effective, snark aims only to embarrass through rude, tasteless jokes and memes. It often targets women and minorities. The document provides examples of snark used against Hillary Clinton and in discussing police violence against black youth. Overall, Denby's book aims to identify and discourage snark in favor of more constructive criticism.

Uploaded by

api-278847499
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
151 views

Ps Review Snark

The document summarizes David Denby's book "Snark" which examines the rise of snarky and insulting discourse online and in media. Snark refers to shallow, knowing insults that denigrate others without furthering discussion. Denby argues snark has come to dominate public conversation, stifling meaningful dialogue. While some mockery can be effective, snark aims only to embarrass through rude, tasteless jokes and memes. It often targets women and minorities. The document provides examples of snark used against Hillary Clinton and in discussing police violence against black youth. Overall, Denby's book aims to identify and discourage snark in favor of more constructive criticism.

Uploaded by

api-278847499
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Its Mean, Its Personal, and Its Ruining Our Conversation

A review of Snark by David Denby

This is an essay about a strain of nasty, knowing abuse spreading like pinkeye through the
national conversationa tone of snarking insult provoked and encouraged by the new hybrid world
of print, television, radio, and the Internet, writes David Denby to open the book, which, as the
title and opening line suggest, is about snark, a vituperative and often shallow tactic that, in the age
of the Internet, has turned our communication anemic, the school-yard equivalent of an irritating
shoulder-prod.
Published in 2008, following the rise of Barack Obama, Snark has a very particular mission
in mind. To call it a book would be rather generous: at a modest 125 pages, which includes a
reference section, it is more so an extended essay. As Denby writes in the acknowledgments, the
inspiration for the book came during a 2007 dinner with journalist Michael Kinsley; as one plate
whisked away and another arrived, the two men hit upon something they felt emblematic of modern
discourse: snark. Kinsley had for some time considered exploring the idea through a long-form essay
for a national magazine. As it were, Kinsley deferred the task to Denby who, with the blessing of his
editor, wrote and published the book the following year. In my opinion, the book suffers slightly by
its peremptory feistiness. Due to its length, Snark sometimes feels like a series of lecture notes
anecdotal examples, tidy to the point of suspicion, produced for effect rather than serious
investigationbut the intentions behind the book remain pure and convincing and perhaps most
unfortunately carry greater resonance now than they did when the book first came out.
This is not a puritanical book. Denby is no crusader for polite discourse. He defends this by
culling history and providing examples of critique he finds satisfactory, even heroic, such as in the
great satirist Jonathan Swift. A large portion of the book is identifying and shelving examples of
worthy and unworthy critics and their respective brands of invective. Unsurprisingly, the rise and
ubiquity of snark coincides more so with the new hybrid world of print, television, radio, and the
Internet. What defines snark? Its exhibitionist, free of meaning or purpose, and explicitly snide,
leering, and abusive; its goal is denigration, embarrassment; not only does it lack refinement or grace,
it suffocates dialogue by consciously operating outside its boundariesit has no business educating
or critiquing or moving conversations forward; it is a doorstop, a rude and definitive slap in the face.

As Denby writes, Snark often functions as an enforcer of mediocrity and conformity. In its cozy
knowingness, snark flatters you by assuming that you get the contemptuous joke.
Thus the internet troll, the racist or misogynist meme, TMZ, the celebrity gawkers, the rape
joke, the lynching joke, and so forth, are contemporary examples of snark. They assume a veil of
humor, but in reality are tasteless and, in some cases, downright sexist or racist. In criticizing snark,
Denby isnt appealing for civility; what he cares for is conscious and engaged dialogue, however
vituperative or polite its emanations. Hillary Clinton, for example, is routinely the victim of cheap
shots fired by critics uncomfortable with her presumed temperament or choice of attire. Men of
similar standing are hardly given the same treatment. When she is accused of being cold and
calculating, a barrage of memes blames her perceived masculinity. They poke fun at her inability to
reign in her husbands licentiousness. They shame her wrinkles. Derogatory charges veiled as
sarcasm, but theyre hardly funny. Theyre rude and meaningless, are neither critical nor salutary;
unsettled by a woman in power, these accusers bandy their insecurities through snark, through
tasteless and derivative tactics that throw a pie on any real conversation about politics and the future
of the country. Similarly, snark has recently stifled the dialogue around the death of young black
boys at the hands of the police. Justifying their deaths by saddling the news stories with stylized
images of rappers in gold chains and silver teethconfirming, by way of analogy, their
thugnessis snark as dismissive mockery. But for what purpose? It doesnt highlight any issues,
doesnt take a stand. Its just condescending, lacks vigor, and like the misogynist cracks against
Clinton, pose as merely lazy and derivative red-herrings.
There are effective ways of using mockery than dont devolve into snark. Take, for example,
Binyavanga Wainainas How to Write about Africa, published in Granta:
Make sure you show how Africans have music and rhythm deep in their souls, and eat things no other
humans eat. Do not mention rice and beef and wheat; monkey-brain is an Africans cuisine of choice, along with goat,
snake, worms and grubs and all manner of game meat. Make sure you show that you are able to eat such food without
flinching, and describe how you learn to enjoy itbecause you care.
Its a wonderfully smarmy piece about the perceptions Americans have about Africa, and the
ways in which these perceptionsin habits, cultures, and stereotypesshape the way we discuss
and understand the sub-continent in a myriad of ways. Though very funny, there is an inner rage
that percolates throughout the piece, and in the end the joke is not on Africa but on us.

Thus, David Denbys Snark is a primer against this denigration in our discourse. He
identifies and bemoans its prevalence. Pieces like Wainainas are hard to come by; more so we are
served the meme and the lynching joke. And nothing, it appears, can alter snarks momentum. All
we can do, perhaps, is recognize its personality, its tone and behavior, and operate above it. Really,
its not that hard to do.

You might also like