Scan barcode
jennthelibrarian's review against another edition
2.0
I had high hopes for this book, but it was not nearly as funny or as snarky as I hoped it would be. Too much history, a dry read.
gabedurham's review against another edition
2.0
Individual distinctions in here are really useful and thought-provoking, but the book does not build to anything approaching a working definition of Snark. Unless you count Maureen Dowd.
lisa_mc's review against another edition
3.0
A quick, generally interesting book on the nature of snark and why it's bad. Denby is a clever writer but the book suffers somewhat from his trying to hit a moving target in defining what snark is. Often, it seems as if "I know it when I see it" is the definition, but he gives copious examples of what he considers snark and what he considers snark-free vituperation. And any book that devotes an entire chapter (albeit a short one) to taking down Maureen Dowd is OK with me.
vdarcangelo's review against another edition
3.0
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/15/author-sounds-alarm-beware-of-the-snark/
This review originally appeared in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
Author sounds alarm: Beware of the 'snark'
By Vince Darcangelo, Special to the Rocky
Published January 15, 2009 at 7 p.m.
Some readers might be puzzled by the title of David Denby's new book, Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation.
What the heck is a "snark"? And why does it have to be so darn mean?
Regulars of the blogosphere and message boards should already be familiar with the term, but for the rest of us, a good working definition of snark comes from the word's etymology - a combination of "snide" and "remark."
Snarks are critical comments - sometimes outright malicious or, as Denby argues, so lacking in substance as to come across as mean-spirited - typically found in blogs, online discussion forums and even print and television media outlets. Gossiping about the intimate lives of celebrities, for example, can be snarky. So is dismissing Michelle Obama as Barack's "baby mama" or posting on a Web site where you can name and rate a sexual partner while remaining anonymous yourself.
Put another way: Snark is glorified bathroom graffiti.
Denby, a film critic for the New Yorker magazine and author of Great Books, describes snark as "the sour underside of a liberated media culture, bumper stickers for the electronic age." He delves into the muck and resurfaces with this extended essay, which mixes historical research with thoughtful criticism and entertaining writing. He explores how emerging media have changed the way we communicate and allowed snark to infiltrate traditional journalism.
"We are in a shaky moment, a moment of transition, and I think it's reasonable to ask: What are we doing to ourselves? What kind of journalistic culture do we want? What kind of Internet culture? What kind of national conversation?"
This is Denby at the top of his game. Anyone concerned with the future of the media should necessarily be concerned with content, and Denby lays out a solid argument that is a clarion call for journalistic integrity.
Most important, Snark is enjoyable to read. Filled with witty one-liners, pop-culture deconstruction and a fair amount of highbrow snark, Denby's strong narrative voice propels the reader through the text, and even turns a history lesson into entertainment as he traces the roots of snark back to the ancient Greeks. (That's right, those snarky ancient Greeks!)
Denby reserves his sharpest knives for dicing up New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. He takes a few stabs at the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer early on, and then devotes an entire chapter to Dowd near the end of the book. He gives her props for her writing skills, in particular her talent for comedy. But as far as being a political writer, "she has not-as far as I can tell-a single political idea in her head." But as sass, not substance, is the name of the game, Denby concludes: "In brief, she's the most gifted writer of snark in the country."
While his chapter on Dowd is often amusing, it lacks the momentum of the previous chapters, and at times borders on personal vendetta. In fact, rather than advancing Denby's premise, it disrupts the narrative thread.
Same for the quick-hit finale. These closing chapters are interesting reads, but they feel tacked on.
That is not to say that these sections don't have anything to offer. Denby closes with a great anecdote about Stephen Colbert and the infamous White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2006, when the comedian skewered George Bush - but unlike the snarkers who take shots behind anonymous Internet handles and in faceless blogs, Colbert made his jokes in Bush's presence. (Denby is a staunch defender of the satirical comedy of Colbert and Jon Stewart.) This is a prime distinction between snark and non-snark, and Denby makes this clear throughout the book.
By no means is Denby calling for the end of criticism, or satire, comedy and irony. He is quick to point out that "Gentleness is not the antidote to snark."
The trouble with snark, for him, is that it's lazy. It's a way for less-talented critics to take shots at those with more talent. And for Denby, snark's detriment to conversation is not what it contributes, but rather what it doesn't: It is criticism without substance.
"The trouble with today's snarky pipsqueaks who break off a sentence or two, or who write a couple of mean paragraphs, is that they don't go far enough; they don't have a coherent view of life . . . they're mere opportunists without dedication, and they don't win any victories."
The biggest loser, though, is all of us. This breakdown of intelligent commentary is infecting what we read, what we think, what we say. Gentleness may not be the antidote, but Denby's book just might be.
Snark through the ages
While snark might be bigger than ever, due to the modern media culture, it isn't a new invention. Here's a look at some historical incidents of snark:
* Eighth century B.C.: Snark possibly invented at a symposium, or wine party, in Athens, where men made jokes about one another in the knowing manner of snark. "The insults were offered in a kind of lewd code that blessed those men privileged enough to hear it."
* Democratic Era, Greece: Snark enters the public domain, infiltrating speeches under the guise of iambic poems. "You didn't just drop your turds in the street if you wanted to be taken seriously," writes Denby. "The abuse was still what we might call snark, but it had to work formally."
* Fifth century B.C.: Comic playwright Aristophanes lampoons the famous with fart jokes.
* First century A.D.: The Roman poet Juvenal publishes a series of satirical works, filled with such snarky gems as: "Your shaggy limbs and the bristling hair on your forearms proclaim a fierce spirit; but the surgeon who lances your swollen piles breaks up at the sight of that well-smoothed passage."
* 1743: In The Dunciad, Alexander Pope deems his rival, the actor and poet laureate Colley Cibber, King of Dunces, writing, "Next, o'er his Books his eyes began to roll / In pleasing memory of all he stole / How here he sipp'd, how there he plunder'd snug / And suck'd all o'er, like an industrious Bug."
* 1874: Lewis Carroll pens The Hunting of the Snark, a nonsense poem that elevates the word "snark" into the public lexicon.
* 1961: British satirical magazine Private Eye debuts, taking shots at the British establishment, including this critique of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: "Their latest L.P., A Day in the Life of Ex-King Zog of Albania, took over five years to make and includes combs on paper, the sound of the Cornish Riviera Express leaving Paddington Station, two million zithers, an electric hydrofoil and the massed strings of the Tel Aviv Police band."
* 1970: Tom Wolfe publishes "These Radical Chic Evenings," an article skewering a party thrown by white celebrities in honor of the Black Panthers. "Snark as a habit of contemptuous low wit brought Tom Wolfe out - or rather, it lured him into an unhappy, jeering corner that he has never since left."
* 1986: Satirical monthly magazine Spy debuts, a publication Denby calls "the center of American snark in the eighties." The magazine took shots at celebrities and epitomized the voice of the outsider wishing to become an insider.
* Present day: Blogs, discussion boards and sites like Gawker have ushered in a new wave of writers relying on insult to garner attention. "Scratch a writer of snark," says Denby, "and you find a media-age conformist and an aesthetic nonentity."
Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation
* By David Denby. Simon & Schuster, 128 pages, $15.95.
* Grade: A
This review originally appeared in the ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS
Author sounds alarm: Beware of the 'snark'
By Vince Darcangelo, Special to the Rocky
Published January 15, 2009 at 7 p.m.
Some readers might be puzzled by the title of David Denby's new book, Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation.
What the heck is a "snark"? And why does it have to be so darn mean?
Regulars of the blogosphere and message boards should already be familiar with the term, but for the rest of us, a good working definition of snark comes from the word's etymology - a combination of "snide" and "remark."
Snarks are critical comments - sometimes outright malicious or, as Denby argues, so lacking in substance as to come across as mean-spirited - typically found in blogs, online discussion forums and even print and television media outlets. Gossiping about the intimate lives of celebrities, for example, can be snarky. So is dismissing Michelle Obama as Barack's "baby mama" or posting on a Web site where you can name and rate a sexual partner while remaining anonymous yourself.
Put another way: Snark is glorified bathroom graffiti.
Denby, a film critic for the New Yorker magazine and author of Great Books, describes snark as "the sour underside of a liberated media culture, bumper stickers for the electronic age." He delves into the muck and resurfaces with this extended essay, which mixes historical research with thoughtful criticism and entertaining writing. He explores how emerging media have changed the way we communicate and allowed snark to infiltrate traditional journalism.
"We are in a shaky moment, a moment of transition, and I think it's reasonable to ask: What are we doing to ourselves? What kind of journalistic culture do we want? What kind of Internet culture? What kind of national conversation?"
This is Denby at the top of his game. Anyone concerned with the future of the media should necessarily be concerned with content, and Denby lays out a solid argument that is a clarion call for journalistic integrity.
Most important, Snark is enjoyable to read. Filled with witty one-liners, pop-culture deconstruction and a fair amount of highbrow snark, Denby's strong narrative voice propels the reader through the text, and even turns a history lesson into entertainment as he traces the roots of snark back to the ancient Greeks. (That's right, those snarky ancient Greeks!)
Denby reserves his sharpest knives for dicing up New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. He takes a few stabs at the Pulitzer Prize-winning writer early on, and then devotes an entire chapter to Dowd near the end of the book. He gives her props for her writing skills, in particular her talent for comedy. But as far as being a political writer, "she has not-as far as I can tell-a single political idea in her head." But as sass, not substance, is the name of the game, Denby concludes: "In brief, she's the most gifted writer of snark in the country."
While his chapter on Dowd is often amusing, it lacks the momentum of the previous chapters, and at times borders on personal vendetta. In fact, rather than advancing Denby's premise, it disrupts the narrative thread.
Same for the quick-hit finale. These closing chapters are interesting reads, but they feel tacked on.
That is not to say that these sections don't have anything to offer. Denby closes with a great anecdote about Stephen Colbert and the infamous White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2006, when the comedian skewered George Bush - but unlike the snarkers who take shots behind anonymous Internet handles and in faceless blogs, Colbert made his jokes in Bush's presence. (Denby is a staunch defender of the satirical comedy of Colbert and Jon Stewart.) This is a prime distinction between snark and non-snark, and Denby makes this clear throughout the book.
By no means is Denby calling for the end of criticism, or satire, comedy and irony. He is quick to point out that "Gentleness is not the antidote to snark."
The trouble with snark, for him, is that it's lazy. It's a way for less-talented critics to take shots at those with more talent. And for Denby, snark's detriment to conversation is not what it contributes, but rather what it doesn't: It is criticism without substance.
"The trouble with today's snarky pipsqueaks who break off a sentence or two, or who write a couple of mean paragraphs, is that they don't go far enough; they don't have a coherent view of life . . . they're mere opportunists without dedication, and they don't win any victories."
The biggest loser, though, is all of us. This breakdown of intelligent commentary is infecting what we read, what we think, what we say. Gentleness may not be the antidote, but Denby's book just might be.
Snark through the ages
While snark might be bigger than ever, due to the modern media culture, it isn't a new invention. Here's a look at some historical incidents of snark:
* Eighth century B.C.: Snark possibly invented at a symposium, or wine party, in Athens, where men made jokes about one another in the knowing manner of snark. "The insults were offered in a kind of lewd code that blessed those men privileged enough to hear it."
* Democratic Era, Greece: Snark enters the public domain, infiltrating speeches under the guise of iambic poems. "You didn't just drop your turds in the street if you wanted to be taken seriously," writes Denby. "The abuse was still what we might call snark, but it had to work formally."
* Fifth century B.C.: Comic playwright Aristophanes lampoons the famous with fart jokes.
* First century A.D.: The Roman poet Juvenal publishes a series of satirical works, filled with such snarky gems as: "Your shaggy limbs and the bristling hair on your forearms proclaim a fierce spirit; but the surgeon who lances your swollen piles breaks up at the sight of that well-smoothed passage."
* 1743: In The Dunciad, Alexander Pope deems his rival, the actor and poet laureate Colley Cibber, King of Dunces, writing, "Next, o'er his Books his eyes began to roll / In pleasing memory of all he stole / How here he sipp'd, how there he plunder'd snug / And suck'd all o'er, like an industrious Bug."
* 1874: Lewis Carroll pens The Hunting of the Snark, a nonsense poem that elevates the word "snark" into the public lexicon.
* 1961: British satirical magazine Private Eye debuts, taking shots at the British establishment, including this critique of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: "Their latest L.P., A Day in the Life of Ex-King Zog of Albania, took over five years to make and includes combs on paper, the sound of the Cornish Riviera Express leaving Paddington Station, two million zithers, an electric hydrofoil and the massed strings of the Tel Aviv Police band."
* 1970: Tom Wolfe publishes "These Radical Chic Evenings," an article skewering a party thrown by white celebrities in honor of the Black Panthers. "Snark as a habit of contemptuous low wit brought Tom Wolfe out - or rather, it lured him into an unhappy, jeering corner that he has never since left."
* 1986: Satirical monthly magazine Spy debuts, a publication Denby calls "the center of American snark in the eighties." The magazine took shots at celebrities and epitomized the voice of the outsider wishing to become an insider.
* Present day: Blogs, discussion boards and sites like Gawker have ushered in a new wave of writers relying on insult to garner attention. "Scratch a writer of snark," says Denby, "and you find a media-age conformist and an aesthetic nonentity."
Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation
* By David Denby. Simon & Schuster, 128 pages, $15.95.
* Grade: A
jacalata's review against another edition
1.0
'intellectually lazy', as another commenter described it, seems appropriate. It is possible that the 'snark' discussed in this book could be defined as any instance of criticism or insult that is insufficiently funny, stems from some kind of jealous inferiority or bitterness, has no 'ideal' or better instance to promote, and is therefore a symptom of lazy indifference and the refusal to commit to a set of principles. But this is not spelled out anywhere (because the author 'doesn't want to get bogged down in definitions') so we are free to define it more simply as 'anything that Denby didn't like'.
/snark (I think?)
/snark (I think?)
ravuri's review against another edition
1.0
Intellectually lazy...
You've had this situation. There's six hours to go before a 10 page paper is due, and you haven't begun writing yet. You have this dynamite thesis and things seem to be really coming together in your head, but once you start putting pen to paper you find out the following: a) your world-shattering idea is not very concrete, b) you only have a couple pieces of good evidence, c) a number of your arguments stem from your own prejudices rather than fact, and d) oh shit, you still have 9.5 pages to go.
This is how I felt when reading Snark. I'm really disappointed, because I know that there is something going wrong in the discourse on public message boards, newspapers, politics, etc. and I was very much hoping that Denby could crystalize these vague feelings. Unfortunately, this book completely failed in this and other regards.
The problems start with trying to find a simple definition of snark. There isn't one. Denby gives us examples of what snark is and isn't, but these examples at best don't really serve to delineate between snark and otherwise, and at worst just serve to confuse. For example, Denby identifies South Park as a non-snark television show, but South Park combines social commentary with "lowbrow"* snark. So, what do you mean, Denby?
The history section is a complete throwaway (it is clear from his reading of Juvenal that he doesn't have a strong grasp of the text... I get the feeling that he likes that type of snark because it's old) and much of the historical context he tries to provide is just empty words on a page. The Anatomy of Style chapter would be better if he replaced his random new-media rants with fact (or even whitespace), and the other three chapters would just seem better if he included details that made me think he had a good grasp on the subject.
There are six pages (78-83) that are actually pretty good about the role of snark in the movie industry. This shouldn't be terribly surprising, as Denby is a movie reviewer for the New Yorker, and he has a good grasp on the subject material. He describes how snarky celeb websites, such as Perez Hilton, etc., use snark to damage the Hollywood star ecosystem and how they actually do reduce the level of public discourse. This material, however, should be in a blog post and not in a published book.
What seems to have happened (and this is just a random hypothesis), is that Denby saw snark in Perez Hilton, etc., thought he understood how it worked, and tried to create a book out of it. Unfortunately, he didn't, and the result is an intellectually lazy book that tells us more about Denby's own prejudices (he really does hate internet media and is much more sympathetic to its traditional counterpart) than about the role of snark in today's society.
In short, not recommended.
*"lowbrow" is according to Denby's "definition", which as far as I can tell, means something that's not "intellectual" (also "defined" by Denby).
You've had this situation. There's six hours to go before a 10 page paper is due, and you haven't begun writing yet. You have this dynamite thesis and things seem to be really coming together in your head, but once you start putting pen to paper you find out the following: a) your world-shattering idea is not very concrete, b) you only have a couple pieces of good evidence, c) a number of your arguments stem from your own prejudices rather than fact, and d) oh shit, you still have 9.5 pages to go.
This is how I felt when reading Snark. I'm really disappointed, because I know that there is something going wrong in the discourse on public message boards, newspapers, politics, etc. and I was very much hoping that Denby could crystalize these vague feelings. Unfortunately, this book completely failed in this and other regards.
The problems start with trying to find a simple definition of snark. There isn't one. Denby gives us examples of what snark is and isn't, but these examples at best don't really serve to delineate between snark and otherwise, and at worst just serve to confuse. For example, Denby identifies South Park as a non-snark television show, but South Park combines social commentary with "lowbrow"* snark. So, what do you mean, Denby?
The history section is a complete throwaway (it is clear from his reading of Juvenal that he doesn't have a strong grasp of the text... I get the feeling that he likes that type of snark because it's old) and much of the historical context he tries to provide is just empty words on a page. The Anatomy of Style chapter would be better if he replaced his random new-media rants with fact (or even whitespace), and the other three chapters would just seem better if he included details that made me think he had a good grasp on the subject.
There are six pages (78-83) that are actually pretty good about the role of snark in the movie industry. This shouldn't be terribly surprising, as Denby is a movie reviewer for the New Yorker, and he has a good grasp on the subject material. He describes how snarky celeb websites, such as Perez Hilton, etc., use snark to damage the Hollywood star ecosystem and how they actually do reduce the level of public discourse. This material, however, should be in a blog post and not in a published book.
What seems to have happened (and this is just a random hypothesis), is that Denby saw snark in Perez Hilton, etc., thought he understood how it worked, and tried to create a book out of it. Unfortunately, he didn't, and the result is an intellectually lazy book that tells us more about Denby's own prejudices (he really does hate internet media and is much more sympathetic to its traditional counterpart) than about the role of snark in today's society.
In short, not recommended.
*"lowbrow" is according to Denby's "definition", which as far as I can tell, means something that's not "intellectual" (also "defined" by Denby).
tatewilliams's review against another edition
2.0
This is an entertaining artifact of 2009, in which an aging journalist explains why the Internet is soiling public discourse and offending his refined sensibilities. David Denby seems to have been curious if he could write a whole book about how much he disliked Gawker and Maureen Dowd. And so he did.
I did take away two lessons from this book, however:
1. Don't be shitty to someone in your writing without very good reason
2. If you're being shitty for a not-very-good reason, you're probably upset about something you're not being up front about
I did take away two lessons from this book, however:
1. Don't be shitty to someone in your writing without very good reason
2. If you're being shitty for a not-very-good reason, you're probably upset about something you're not being up front about
joshhornbeck's review
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5
FIRST THOUGHTS:
It’s a really useful look at snark and the ways it’s used by many to “punch down” or troll or just tear down someone without offering any kind of constructive way forward for society. And as our society gets ever crueler, it’s helpful to have some delineation marked out. It would be nice to have an updated version of the text, and there is a verbosity that borders on the ponderous at times, but the tone is still light enough that it never overwhelms the text.
It’s a really useful look at snark and the ways it’s used by many to “punch down” or troll or just tear down someone without offering any kind of constructive way forward for society. And as our society gets ever crueler, it’s helpful to have some delineation marked out. It would be nice to have an updated version of the text, and there is a verbosity that borders on the ponderous at times, but the tone is still light enough that it never overwhelms the text.
sdownsy's review against another edition
I defer to Suman's review on this one. I tried to read it but couldn't. That says a lot. So sad, because I really love David Denby and I do feel there is a point to be made here . . . too bad he doesn't make it. He does get points for calling out Maureen Dowd, though . . .
tsutrav's review
2.0
Too much of this slim volume was spent on the history of snark as well as splitting the hairs of snark, satire and criticism. While the definitions are important I would have appreciated more time on the impact that snark has on our conversations these days. Of course, the book was written in 2008 (published in 2009) and I'm reading it through the TikTok, Facebook, Twitter lens of 2020, so perhaps that's enough to slant my view. Perhaps it's time for an update?
More...