Denby, who is a film critic for the New Yorker, makes a point that many online readers might readily agree with: Theres a lot of writing out there thats pointlessly mean, cheap, empty and thoughtless and its getting old.
But the book goes further, suggesting that snarky bloggers, journalists and commenters have become a kind of intellectual scourge thats ruining our conversation and its this more damning claim that deserves scrutiny.
I spoke with Denby about his book, the Web and whether snark which he sees as a journalistic pinkeye is spreading as fast as hed like us to believe.
A few reviewers have snarked that youve had trouble succinctly defining the term snark. Want to give it another shot?
Well, the contemporary version is the kind of nasty, insidious, rug-pulling, teasing insult, which makes reference to some generally understood shared prejudice or distaste.
Its metastasized as a pop writing form. And the Internet, of course, spreads this stuff around virally, so it replicates itself and goes everywhere ...
Dang Internet!
Everyone I know in journalism is in a panic at all levels. Old media types like me are worried that our beloved publications are going to subside into just electronic versions. And theyll have much less authority than they do in hard copy. In other words, once theyre only on the Web, theyll just seem like a point of view rather than an authority.
I see what youre getting at. But why would one medium (print) confer inherently more authority than another (the Web) if whats being said is the same? Arent ideas ideas, and words words, no matter if theyre on a piece of paper or a screen?
Im afraid the great papers and newsmagazines will decline in authority for two reasons: When theyre no longer uniquely there, on the breakfast table, in our hands with morning coffee, they will join an immense chorus of voices clamoring for our attention ... and second, I wonder if they will continue to do some special things like investigative reporting, the beautifully crafted sports story, the long book, concert and movie review...
To be a skeptic for a moment: If you think of the Web as a giant cherry tree, you could really cherry-pick examples to illustrate just about any trend youd like. And to be sure, there are enough snarky cherries to fill a fleet of dump trucks. But the Web has also enabled plenty of high-level discourse. Is it fair to say that the claim that snark is infecting the national conversation might be exaggerated?
The Internet is the greatest revolution in democratic practice since popular suffrage. Everyone knows that, and I am just as dependent on the Internet as anyone else. In the wake of a democratic revolution like that, theres both an enormous explosion of information and expression, much of it useful or fun, and also an explosion of pent-up rage, social anguish, resentment, bilious, other-annihilating nastiness, prejudice and all the rest of the dark side. If that stuff is destroying conversation threads, screwing up peoples...
...reputations, spreading around unchecked rumor or just snark, its worth pointing to it and saying, Stop lousing up my revolution. The point of the book is to protect the best kind of humor by criticizing the worst.
Were talking a lot about trends in media rather than just bad or nasty writing. It seems like you might be saying that snark is a kind of symptom of the decay of quality journalism.
Absolutely. To tell you the truth, I wrote the book in a sweat last spring and summer, and I wasnt totally conscious of what was really bothering me.
Well OK, for any of us who write online, whether its articles, blog posts or comments in a discussion thread, is there a litmus test for snark we can apply to our words before we press publish?
Well thats hard, but let me try. If youre going to attack someone personally, ask yourself whether the writing creates a fresh image, whether it has a physical quality which brings it to life.
