Jon Gabriel
  • Home
  • Words
  • Media
  • Design
  • Contact

ricochet: Jumping the Snark

6/26/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
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 and 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’ 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 a few 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?!
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012

    Categories

    All
    Arizona
    Arizona Republic
    Art
    Business
    Buzzfeed
    Communication
    Culture
    Daily Caller
    Design
    Drugs
    Economy
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Family
    Food & Drink
    Freedomworks
    Free Speech
    Gender
    Guns
    Health Care
    Heartland Institute
    Humor
    Immigration
    International
    Journalism
    Military
    Music
    Neatorama
    NY Post
    Outrage
    Philosophy
    Photoshop
    Politics
    Red Tape
    Religion
    Ricochet
    Social Media
    Technology
    Unions
    USA Today
    Wall Street Journal

    RSS Feed

© 2017  Jon Gabriel. All rights reserved.
  • Home
  • Words
  • Media
  • Design
  • Contact