Is Snark Killing the Internets?

A friend linked me to a blog post called "Is Snark Killing The Web?" yesterday morning, figuring it was relevant to my interests. Since it's about how snarky websites and comments are killing the internet, or at least the part where blogs live, and since I write for a snarky pop culture commentary site under a moniker that clearly implicates me as part of the vast Snark-Wing Conspiracy, I guess my friend was right on the money.

The author's thesis is simple: snarky commentary is stifling the sincerity that once ruled blog writing. Is that true? Dear bloggers whose hearts reside on thine shirtsleeves, am I fuckin' up your Christmas with my snark?

Here is a snippet from the post by Michael Duff, author of Geekcentric and jaded blogger from way back in the early 90s:

"Snark is fun to write and fun to read, unless you’re on the receiving end. It’s fun to sit in the cheap seats and throw tomatoes at the stage, but what happens when you read an article or get an insider email and are suddenly forced to see your target as a real human being?

What if all the celebrities we enjoy making fun of are just hard-working artists struggling to make a living, struggling to stay on top of this shifting mountain of pop culture crap?"

My thoughts?
Snarky Amber: That dude is a whiner.
Friend of Snarky: I love you.
Snarky Amber: Like, I see his point...to a point. But COME ON. I never publish a single thing on the web without the knowledge that I am opening myself up to the criticism of every asshole with a keyboard.

And, poppets, that is generally true. Am I saying that I've never been butt-hurt about what someone on the internet said about me? Well, I could say that, but I'd be full of shit, so no. However, I do feel that when people cast their nets wide enough to reach an intended audience, the response from their actual audience will not be universally positive, and if you don't expect that as a blogger, you're probably better off not publishing online at all, or at the very least disabling comments.

Critics have been around as long as art itself, so this really isn't a new concept, nor is snarky writing a nascent phenomenon, as it's portrayed by Duff. I'm pretty sure Samuel Johnson was way snarkier than I could ever hope to be. If you don't know who that is (and if you've never been an English major I don't expect you to), he kind of invented the dictionary, and in his version, there were definitions like this one:

oats: A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people.

That is some snark. 18th century snark. And if it's good enough for the father of lexicography, it can't be all that bad, right?

While Duff doesn't seem to intentionally dismiss snark as a valid form of discourse, one quote gave me more than a little pause:

"These days, snark is a writing style, like the worst kind of celebrity journalism, wrapped in a faux-intimate first-person style." [emphasis mine]

We here at MamaPop apply snark in liberal doses to all things pop culture, including celebrities, but I think we do so smartly, as do many of our peer sites, so to dismiss "snark" writing altogether as the "E! News" of the internet is unfair. The rhetorical device we call snark can also be a sharp and cutting tool to reveal and examine what is ludicrous in a world that has become very ludicrous indeed. You know how they say if you don't laugh, you have to cry? Well, yeah, like that, but rhetorically.

I also fail to see why snarksters and confessional bloggers can't co-exist in such a big blogosphere. I just don't view snark as killing confessional blogging the way Duff does, because I read good, personal blogs every day, like those of my fellow MamaPop authors. I see gifted writers who make with the snark and pour their guts out, sometimes both in the same blog — sometimes in the same post. While they occasionally endure snarky or, sometimes, just plain mean and nasty comments, they soldier on. They know they write on the internet for everyone to see, and that not everyone is going to like it or respond to it positively. The reason there was less snark on blogs in the early 90s is that only a handful of people read them, not that some virus called snark was engineered and released upon unsuspecting internet diarists.

Ultimately my beef with Duff's assessment of snark is that it isn't nuanced; it doesn't acknowledge that there are degrees of success or worth in snark as there are in any style of writing. And it's not even snark itself that is problematic, but rather how snark is applied. It's one thing to criticize the work or the actions of a person, and another entirely to criticize their appearance or worth as human beings. Here at MamaPop, we strive to apply snark tastefully with a fine-tip pen, though we're far from perfect. Thus, I take particular exception to having snark painted with such a broad stroke as to lump writers like myself with writers like, say Perez Hilton.

I won't accept that snark is a lesser writing style, nor that it can't exist without sucking the sincerity out of blogging. Here on the internet, just like anywhere else, when you try to homogenize the discourse, the discourse gets boring. I firmly believe there is room for us to pour our hearts out and poke fun at each other in the same wild frontier we call the internet.

Sincerely,
Snarky

Comments

[Deb]

Snark is ruining the internet about as much as the internet was invented by Al Gore. Seriously - if you don't like reading snark, don't read it. If you don't like a TV show, don't watch it. If you don't like Jack FM, don't listen. Choices people. Make your own choices.

[sweetney]

a few things.

i've been attacked more times than i can count on the internet. and i've cried, and raged, and posted about it (which is THE WORST THING you can do), and you know what? ultimately i've realized it's kind of a compliment. that people see your writing as notable enough to be satirized or lampooned or even torn to shreds. i put myself out here, and some people love me. some people don't. and from day one i should've anticipated that and realized it comes with the territory. now i just don't read the critics. i ignore dumb comments (or, in the case of the truly nasty ones, delete them). the internet isn't a happy blog community, it's the whole of society -- it's a city street -- and so you're going to get nice people, and stupid people, and mean people, and brilliant people. they're all out there. and eventually, they're all going to find you. (shrugs)

as for mamapop, i agree -- i'm not sure "snark" is even the right word for what we do here. i don't think we're genuinely snide, and i think we do recognize the essential humanity of the people we write about. an arguable point, but i think we're a lot more thoughtful and smarter than most entertainment blogs (esp "gossip" blogs).

[Snarky Amber]

Ultimately, I think you're right, but I also think that, for many, snark has a less severe meaning than Duff is allowing here (i.e., the traditional meaning). With MamaPop, snark in the traditional sense probably isn't as accurate as the newer, more innocuous definition I've seen bandied about. I don't even think *I'm* all that snide on my own. I'm mostly harmless.

[kris]

You nailed it - it's the "smart" part of this (our?) snark that makes it writing. If we're ever reduced to pettiness for the sake of having something to post that day, and then that week, we should probably fold. Until then, I say SNARK AWAY.

[Katie Kat]

I think snarking is akin to trolling. (Although I will say trolls are intentionally being rude and it tends to go way to far.) It's really two sides of the same coin. People want to be heard and they often have a sarcastic way of saying what they mean. It's not really "wrong" per se, just one way of reacting to today's world. It's like Don Rickles' comedy - if you don't want to be insulted (or get trolls), DON'T POST! :)

[heartache heartburn]

I agree that snark can cause issues, but I also think that we have a choice to read it or not to read it. If it bothers you don't read it. It seems that simple to me. There are plenty nonsnarky sites out there. Good post!

[baltimoregal]

Oh, I don't think that snarking is akin to trolling at all. I think that snarking is the public act of being a smartass, while trolling is going out of your way to hurt people, often anonymously. BIG difference in my book.

[sweetney]

BaltimoreGal - it seems the author does connect these two things, does he not?

moreover, it seems to me what he's really calling for is *civility*. which, eh, that's a nice dream (not to be snarky (heh), but c'mon. the soul of the internet, if such a thing exists, is likely something like a mash-up between FARK and 4CHAN. and though i'm not necessarily pleased with that, i recognize and accept it. there are pockets of smart civility large enough for us to reside there, but let's not expect the internet masses to be anything but what they are).

[heels]

I think of snark as a form of humorous critique, and I think critique is a very good thing when done correctly. Good snark, to me, does not include nasty ad hominem attacks, but it does hold up a mirror (with a sarcastic little twist) to the potential absurdity of topics/behavior/specific subjects. Snark is a sibling to satire, which is also best done without being truly mean. It's also some of my favorite stuff on the internet.

[Michael Duff]

Thanks for the link and the thoughtful response here.

I think it's useful to make a distinction between professional snark, where a web site has a distinct voice and you know it's just business, vs. amateur snark, which is just random people being jerks.

And for the record, when I used the word "worst" I meant "meanest" and wasn't impuning the quality of anybody's writing.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much room for nuance in my original column.

[BaltimoreGal]

WORD, Sweetney. On some level, snark IS the internet. And this very post, and discussion following (including note by author) is proof that snark will not kill it.

[don't ask my name]

As someone who used to blog for 2 years, I stopped because someone decided to take the snark too far. Not only did this person mock me and threaten me irrationally, but they got totally out of control. Since that point, I've not really blogged since, and I'm not sure if I can again. I prefer to be passive about it & "not feed the trolls" but I'm just saying... snarking silences voices.

[Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah]

I am firmly in the "if you don't like snark there are a bazillion blogs and websites out there that don't do it." You can choose what you read.

[Snarky Amber]

Michael,

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind response and for clarifying your meaning. I'm happy to share the internet with nice people like you.

Oh, and sorry about the "whiner" thing. I mean, not really. After all, I admit I am the biggest whiner you'll ever meet, and I'm told I think far too highly of myself, so it follows that I must hold you in only the highest esteem.

[Katie Kat]

Just to clarify - I wasn't saying snarking and trolling are the same thing, just "two sides of the same coin." Trolls ARE being intentionally rude, but sometimes snarkiness accomplishes the same thing. It's just done with a sharp tongue instead of a mean heart. :)

[tifRN]

well, i think snark is a lot of fun to read, and to write. but not just for the sake of being bitchy, but for being humorous, or to push the envelope a little. that's why i love this site. and why i loved snarkywood when it was up. people who want to be tipper gore about it can go read something, well, tipper gore-ish.

[Michael Duff]

No worries, Amber.

I don't want to eliminate snarky websites, but I would like to keep snarky comments out of the sincere ones.

I think Matt's original post was not about snarky web sites as much as it was about people who try to write snark in the comment section of posts about grandma's battle with breast cancer.

The real problem is people being snarky in places where snark is not appropriate, a point I wish I'd thought of 48 hours ago...

[The Usual Suspect]

Uh, I am still unclear of what a snark is. "Snide" and "remark" put together to make a word that would equal both of those? I have one of those words to. It's "sonasty" because sometimes it is so nasty that it all comes together to be sonasty.