I Apologize for Promoting Snark

"That Weinberg could make a rebuke seem like a compliment is testament to his sociological position . . . Truthtelling is easier from a position of cultural distance." (Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker, Nov. 10, 2008)

"Anyone who speaks of grace - so spiritual a word - in conjunction with our raucous culture risks sounding like a genteel idiot, so I had better say right away that I'm all in favor of nasty comedy, incessant profanity, trash talk, any kind of satire, and certain kinds of invective . . . I don't want to get caught in a thicket of definitions, so let me lay about quickly and brutally. Satire is always critical, directly or indirectly, of manners, vices, attitudes, persons, social types, or conditions. The satirist is enraged by what others accept. At its greatest, most powerful, and most dangerous, satire makes use of a double edged sword - the devious and aggressive weapon of irony. The satirist practicing irony appears to praise the very thing he loathes. He exaggerates its features, and the terms of his praise give the show away. He tells truths in the form of lies . . . In an earlier period, we though that in the free market of ideas and language, the best and most truthful expression would win out and the rest would be forgotten. Now, I'm not so sure." (David Denby, Snark: A Polemic in Seven Fits, pgs. 1, 29, & 88)

Exactly one month ago, I posted that I had a forthcoming review of the book that the second quote above comes from. I just barely got to it this week and I kept a list of every word the author used to describe snark (here are the first 50): "nasty, knowing, low, teasing, snide, condescending, ridicule, ill will, prejudice, lazy, group mentality, contempt, bullying, easy, parasitic, referential, insinuating, debilitating, sarcastic, hostile, mediocrity, conformity, malice, natural, bilious, snarling, resentful, annihilating, anonymity, gossipy, desperate, limited, creepy, biting, trivial, cynicism, cruelty, sinister, destructive, dismissal, smearing, derisive, insolent, sneaky, unpleasant, crass, spiteful, negative, undermining, (and to sum it all up, an) insult." NONE of those things are what I intended my blog's name to mean, and I would hope that none of these descriptions apply (save for the one in bold). If you ever find my blog to be any of these 50 words, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

In my header, I used to include the Urban Dictionary definition of the word snark, which is simply "a combination of the words snide and remark." One of Webster's definitions for snide is "unworthy of esteem," and that matches my original understanding of snark as throwaway criticism or "nitpicking," which was the popular meaning during the late 19th century. Even less offensive is Lewis Carroll's definition from his 1876 poem, "The Hunting of the Snark: An Agony, in Eight Fits," where it's just a nonsense word from "the comination of snail and shark." Imagine such an animal - slow-moving, hard on the outside and soft on the inside, all fangs but no flippers. I never meant "I Wear My Snark Upon My Sleeve" to mean anything more than "I make fun of the things I love the most." And here's why:

The first time I consciously remember coming across the term snark was on the Comics Worth Reading website. The author of that used to do what was essentially a monthly blog post on new comics as presented in the Previews catalog. On the left column she included pictures of the books she reviewed. The middle column included the books she was spotlighting with praise. The right column was entitled "Snarky Comments" directed mostly at bad marketing moves, since the nagging referred just to the ads in the Previews catalog and not the books themselves. She never directly criticized the creators that I can remember. It was in all good taste and primarily to vent about mismanagement of an industry THAT SHE LOVES. I printed some of her "Snarky Comments" (which technically would be a redundant term, like "snide remark remark") from October 2004 and I keep them in my "Comics" file folder in "the box" (see my 9/11/08 post). Here are some of her examples:

Regarding the indie press
"ADV films is plugging More Starlight to Your Heart as "finally, a manga for girls!" Where have they been over the past year? There's plenty of manga for girls out there. Or are they referring to fixing a gap in their product line? . . . I like their quick genre descriptions - this book's "action horror," that one is "light-hearted fantasy" - but someone go a little weird at some point. Are there really so many titles in the category that "robot super maids" should be considered a genre? How many examples of "wacky Satanic comedy" can there be?"

Regarding DC Comics
"During the Batman crossover "War Games," I quickly determined that I could easily and enjoyably skip all of the associated books. Now the event is over... and browsing through the creators, characters, and descriptions, it looks like I'll be happier continuing in that fashion. Thanks for saving me time and money, DC! . . . How's this for promotion? "It's the beginning of a year of hell for Hawkman." It sounds as though they've decided that no one really likes the character, so maybe the book will sell better if they go for the sadistic sales pitch. "Watch us put our character through the wringer!"

Regarding Marvel Comics
"Marvel's getting into the old argument, "Any true X-fan will enjoy" the three issues of Exiles they're putting out this month. So if you don't like seeing mutants play swords and sorcery, you're not a REAL fan. Marvel says so . . . And I haven't even mentioned the aborted "take half your Ultimates 2 issues in black and white" marketing stunt yet. All of this adds up to a paternalistic attitude towards retailers and customers that grates. It's old-fashioned to believe that the publisher really has anyone's best interests at heart but its own. Look at how they're trying to flood the market with unwanted X-books and supposed Avengers tie-ins that aren't and office scrapings published as Director's Cut editions. Now they're even selling unfinished marketing material as the $4 Young Guns 2004 Sketchbook."

Too "insidery?" I will grant that most snark is, but I don't think the quotes above are purposefully exclusive to comic book "outsiders." Passionate, yes. Conservative, no. Hopeful for change, yes. Jealous of those in power, no. My mom used to ask my brothers and I if we were "builders or bashers." If author David Denby is right about snark never building anything, then I'm changing my blog's name to "Wear Your Weight Well" (which is my favorite compliment that isn't really a compliment, but also refers to puffed up opinions like my own). I just removed the "worst" lists I used to have at the bottom right. I'm going to try to focus on the positive.