Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Jumping the Snark
The internet features lots of snark, but precious little wit. Spend any time on social media, and you’ll find that most confuse the two.
Wit is defined as “the keen perception and cleverly apt expression of those connections between ideas that awaken amusement and pleasure.” Snark is “to be critical in a rude or sarcastic way.” Of course, sarcasm and rudeness can be funny, but the problem with most snark is its purely negative intent. Don Rickles is obnoxiously rude but everyone knows he doesn’t mean it. And funny sarcasm contains a wink to the recipient that it’s all in good fun. But snark holds the subject in contempt and the goal is harm him while virtue-signaling to the cool kids.
David Denby wrote an entire book about snark, aptly titled Snark, where he describes it as “that nasty combination of snide and sarcasm that goes beyond irony and satire to just plain ugliness.”
A semi-recent example of Denby’s definition was the left’s weird mockery of Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comment. His statement demonstrated how his governorship had more women in senior leadership positions than that of any other state. This didn’t just happen randomly, but Romney actively sought out qualified females to better represent his constituents.
Attacks from the left were quick and none made sense. The ersatz jokes never got to a punchline, leaning instead on the “Women? In binders? Really?!” formula that led Seth Meyers’s Weekend Update into laughless decline.
Making a statement and adding “Really?” is the Platonic ideal of snark. Humor isn’t even attempted, just a vague dismissal followed by a dumb grin, pencil tap, or raised eyebrow. It contains some trappings of comedy but none of the impact.
Snark is what unfunny people think is funny. It’s the comedian with lousy material who shouts it louder to spark a reaction. It’s the mean girls teasing the new kid at school because her hair is so last year. Snark offers no insights, but only flatters the biases of the author and the intended audience.
Worst of all, snark is lazy. Instead of offering a clever juxtaposition, a fresh turn of phrase, or a unique perspective, the snarker just mutters, “white people, am I right?” It’s a boring pose, revealing cynicism not comedy.
You want to disagree with me? In the comments? Really?!
Published in General
the Daily show was nothing but snark, and has created a snark industry. Stephen Colbert, Samantha Bee on TNT, John Oliver, that black dude who wasn’t funny at the correspondence dinner……. Are nothing but snark
Great analysis Jon.
Yes–way too much unfunny snark in this world. That said, it can be a fine line between parody and snark, and parody can be pretty funny.
Great article, and to use snark properly you must know the same inside group truth everyone knows. This mindless mob attempt at humor isn’t funny, it’s depressing.
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/43909
Serendipitous you threw this up today, John.
Last night I was puttering around with the TV as background.
I noticed the box was tuned to SNL, which I haven’t watched in years.
They were doing a skit that was supposed to be a send up of the Fox News morning show.
The most unfunny thing I’ve seen in years. I am at a loss for words trying to describe how unfunny it was. Nothing but snide, greasy, self-satisfied snark.
Jon,
So true.
Regards,
Jim
Just look at “comedy” central’s most recent roasts: they include a bunch of nobodies and maybe two or three people that actually know the person being roasted. The roasts aren’t funny. The close friends of the roastee always do the best, but the others have no wit or new insight to add about the roastee.
Also why does everyone seem to think that they must work blue? A few, choice, rare swear words can make a bit hilarious; but when every other word is a swear word, it just doesn’t work.
For a great display of wit, revisit Bob Newhart when he did the telephone calls in his stand-up shows.
Which, so Shelley Berman alleges, he got from him. I love the original.
Various versions of the telephone bit were around before both Berman and Newhart. George Jessel may have been the first with his vaudeville skit of “Hello, Mom” in the 1920’s.
Send in Deeble. He’s got more talent in his toe than the lot of SNL.
There’s an old saying, wit is educated insolence. That doesn’t make it un-American, but it does require a democratic slant.
People who think of democracy as their home because they’re themselves successful or the creatures of the successful–well, it will rarely occur to them that they might require an education or who might offer it them. A desire to seem educated or at least knowing is inevitable among civilized people; whether it can be satisfied is a very different question…
Properly understood, snark or sarcasm is how freedom of speech commits suicide. The motive is a desire to give insult or to punish. This is tied up with democracy or equality–everyone is going to give you a good lashing in the new world–no one is authorized to speak for others–no one is bound to listen to anyone else. Nobody’s going to stand for the unpleasant stuff & disagreement is bound to be unpleasant. Equality by itself does not make for equal forbearance. Freedom of speech might just mean a lot of acrimony.
It is the opposite of entering into someone’s thought or intention; it is as much as declaring someone not to be human. Cynicism is a good word for what’s wrong with the new world. Way too many people are willing to believe almost anything except that there might be good things coming from talking to people. This is more fear than contempt, more weakness than anything else…
The Left can dish out the snark–but they can’t take it!
Of course, the optimal situation for ’em is when a Lefty politician is also a member of a victim class. Make fun of Black Man Barack? Wise Latina Soto-Mayor? Woman Hillary?
How.
Dare.
You?
In fact, even to disagree with ’em is churlish, after what WE’ve done! ( meaning, of course, just NOT being one of the above…)
Or Greg Gutfeld, one of the funniest men in America
I wish that snark was solely the provence of the left. Unfortunately, it is not that uncommon on right wing websites when the efficacy or truthfulness of a particular idol is challenged. This may be due to the origins of that idol politically, but it none-the-less happens, and it is disconcerting when you expect the norm of civil conversation that one has gotten used to on Ricochet.
In debate, or less civilly, argument, snark is a ready signal that the snarker has no rational response to the issue now before him/her. It’s sort of corollary to one of the principles of the Clintons’ “triangulation” principle: Determine where you are the weakest, and destroy your opponent by accusing him/her of that very issue.
It’s also a dead giveaway of an unprepared, amateurish opponent. Sadly, all to often I see it work.
So,… how do you counter snark? With more snark? Or with something like: “That’s all you’ve got? Snark? Want to throw out some facts and logic instead?”
If you want to go back to the origins of today’s snark, you can take a look at Chevy Chase’s original SNL Weekend Update, where he mercilessly jabbed at Gerald Ford’s clumsiness. Chase lasted a year, but he set the tone for Weekend Update to this day. Six or seven years later, it was reinforced by David Letterman on his first talk show Late Night. As a matter of fact, Letterman did have to tone things down, because he frequently humiliated guests with his snark, regardless of their politics. After awhile they refused to go on.
Today’s millennials probably see a Letterman as past his prime. But he was a cultural icon on the American scene in the nineteen-eighties and nineties.
I am a little ashamed to say that I was affected by it, and adopted a lot of it myself. And people in my cohort did find it funny.
I find that people a generation younger than me and younger still, have gotten away from it. Snark isn’t as popular anymore. And I find a seriousness from younger people that as a group, us boomers didn’t have. That gives me some hope.
I agree that a rather inhuman sarcasm was a feature of the early Letterman.
If you respond with snark, you perpetuate the cycle of snarkolence.
Except that snark isn’t popular anymore. Not the way it was. Jon’s title for this thread is appropriate, because it has gone too far, and become tiring.
So if you wish, it’s attempted suicide, not committed suicide. The college campus foibles with safe spaces, micro-aggressions, etc, are so pathetic, our side doesn’t bother with snarking them.
Snark is wit for the witless. And if your audience is witless, snark is wit.
And if you give it a moments thought, the Bob Newhart persona was then stolen by Ellen De Generes.
Years ago a lefty guy at work advised me to watch a particular Jon Stewart (or was it Colbert, whatever) show.
I came back the next day and said I didn’t think it was particularly funny.
His face got all red and his eyes bugged out, “It was HILARIOUS!”
One of the problems with Jon Stuart is that he always appeared genuinely ignorant of the opposite position. I remember Stephen of the weekly standard showed up and had to educate Jon Stuart. How do you make your entire life about politics and not know about the other side.
Reminds me of Field Marshal Lord Wavell’s comments about sarcasm:
Explosions of temper do not necessarily ruin a general’s reputation or influence with his troops; it is almost expected of them (“the privileged irascibility of senior officers,” someone has written), and it is not always resented, sometimes even admired, except by those immediately concerned. But sarcasm is always resented and seldom forgiven. (emphasis added) In the Peninsula the bitter sarcastic tongue of Craufurd, the brilliant but erratic leader of the Light Division, was much more wounding and feared than the more violent outbursts of Picton, a rough, hot-tempered man….(the general) should never indulge in sarcasm, which is being clever at someone else’s expense, and always offends.
Also: some thoughts on snideness in advertising
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/snide-advertising-bad-business-society/125053/
another way comedians compensate for a lack of humor is to use profanity
By living in a leftist bubble, where your friends, coworkers and the news sources you frequent all are lefty, and are all into virtue signalling.