In his 2009 book, David Denby described snark as a form of commentary that teases someone in a snide, knowing way. A snarky remark penetrates just those parts of a person's reputation that are most vulnerable to criticism and misunderstanding -- the sensitive parts of oneself that, when illuminated and ridiculed, can stop a person cold, or send them to bed, to drink, or into a state of humiliation and self-doubt (see last post).
Snark can be destructive and undermine a person's sense of self, even, according to Denby, driving a few to depression or suicide. "Snark...," he worries, often
...has zero interest in civic virtue or anything else except the power to ridicule.
Yet our civic interest surely includes laughter, and snark also can be amusing. There is a "we're not happy until you're not happy" aspect to it. Denby elaborates:
Let's not fall into a misunderstanding. Life would be intolerable without any snark at all. There are public events like Dick Cheney's shooting his close friend in the puss, or Eliot Spitzer's encounters with a $4,300 hooker after prosecuting vice for several years -- events that no human being could fail to relish, rehash, retell.
Judgments of others also ought to be accurate and purposeful, because they almost invariably will draw a reaction from the person judged (and the judged person's allies). Perhaps for that reason, the decision to snark or not to snark should be filtered through a sense of one's personal and social mission.
Consider Denby's allowances:
I promised myself I would not merely ask everyone to be nice, and I don't think I have. The snarkers... [however]...are settling for too little in their writing while ignoring the damage they are doing to conversation and to themselves (imagine a life in which a snarking attitude toward everything is enough!).
I am... calling for a paganism of language in which every sensuous apprehension of the surfaces of life is filtered through a developed sense of how the surfaces and the interiors fit together, and what matters and what doesn't.
In other words, snark can be superficial, but those who use it best do so to serve a purpose (including being funny). Discerning the best uses from the worst requires some artistry, and who better to point that out than a critic of the arts?
There is mischief right in Denby's remark, "I promised myself I would not merely ask everyone to be nice...". He knows something of how the human heart can be opened through humor.
So, if you must snark, don't do it too often. Be funny with it, and engage because it is really too delicious to resist. Aim it toward people who can laugh at themselves, who have earned it to some degree by something they did, and who are important enough to deserve it.
Judging others accurately requires a knowledge of the facts involved. So the snark should be accurate and almost always should be signed so that the snarker accepts responsibility for the comments.
In such cases, yes, snarky judgments can sometimes be good: Even so, setting the proper tone of the judgment requires good intentions, artistry, and comic ability; moreover, the audience will have to share one's own standards and judgments (the "knowingness" part). Not everyone will agree that a given remark served a positive purpose or was served up in good taste.
It may be worth snarking at times if you have the judgment and skill to do so; if not, it may be time to lay off the snark.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Click here for earlier posts in this series.
Click here for information about the Personality Analyst posts including schedules, the various series of the blog, policies concerning comments, and a glossary.
Notes: Denby, D. (2009). Snark. New York: Simon & Schuster.
"Snark...," Denby worries, often "has zero interest in civic virtue or anything else except the power to ridicule. " (p. 2); Life would be intolerable without any snark at all. (p. 7); I promised myself I would not merely ask everyone to be nice, and I don't think I have. (p. 88).
Copyright © 2009 John D. Mayer
