As I watched news coverage of Inauguration Day, I kept trying to silence the imaginary voice of Jon Stewart narrating what I saw on network T.V. I caught myself rolling my eyes at Katie Couric's comments and laughing at the absurd number of times the anchors called the meeting between the Bushes and the Obamas "cordial." In retrospect, I wish I had been more focused on bearing witness to the details of this historic event.
This impulse to mock -- and the difficulties we face in tuning out our inner pundits -- is just what David Denby takes to task in his new book, "Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation" (2009). Published this month, the slim, light volume is the New Yorker film critic's polemic against aimless and heartless slander that poses as humor, yet does harm.
After framing a rough definition of the word "snark" and exploring its obscure etymology, Denby traces the term's history back to its more sophisticated ancestor, satire. With a collage of informative anecdotes, he demonstrates what we've lost in the transition from Jonathan Swift and Gawker.
"What makes all of this ragging activity, whether satirical or merely nasty, so much greater and more exhilarating than contemporary snark is the structured nature of the abuse," he writes. "[Classic satire] was not only governed by compositional rules and standards, it was fully sustained -- composed as a set of verses or as part of a play rather than as offhand remarks."
True enough -- blog posts may lack the coherence of ancient Greek iambs, but we live in an age with different aesthetic priorities and concepts of humor than those of Aristophanes and company. Different audiences call for different forms.
To combat the degeneration of snark, Denby calls on his readers to use "grace" in judgment, making clear that he does not wish for the return of "Politically Correct" banality or authoritarian censorship.
Instead, he suggests in his book, we should be more selective when choosing our targets. Denby, however, offers little further guidance. Mostly, he rants against the "snarky pipsqueaks who ... don't stand for anything" and suggests that we replace snark with "clean" criticism instead. Just what he means by this is anyone's guess.
While at times Denby strays from his argument -- broadening the discussion to online journalism, noting the opportunity for anonymous slander online and devoting an entire chapter to the misdirection of Maureen Dowd's wit -- the book makes us wonder what will happen to the cult of broadcast cynicism that blossomed during the Bush administration. This might be one area in which the new president cannot promise change.
