Roger Ebert: Hunt not the Snark but the Snarker - The Diigo Meta page

• 12 Apr 09
  

  Daniel Andrlik

  This post from Roger Ebert about snark both in print and on the Internet is worth a read for all of us, especially those of us that pride ourselves on our wit. You and I may not agree with all of his examples, but it has several core points that are worth considering. It's not that I (or Ebert for that matter) think that snark should be done away with, it has more to do with confronting the dark intention of snark and understanding that before we engage in it. That dark intention is identified by Ebert as:
  
  >[Snark] functions as a device to punish human spontaneity, eccentricity, non-conformity and simple error.
  
  Read it, and let me know what you think. (Comments will hopefully return sometime soon.)

  internet culture

  • Step back to see how snarking has worked in this case. It has operated almost as a reflex to smack down behavior that upsets our expectations. It essentially says: Get back in line, Phoenix! Think now of Howard Dean's scream, Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction, Sarah Palin's inability to name her reading material. Did we really think, even at the height of political passion, that the governor didn't read any newspapers? That would be George Bush, who said he didn't.
  • What concerns me is that snark functions as a device to punish human spontaneity, eccentricity, non-conformity and simple error. Everyone is being snarked into line. All celebrities are under unremitting scrutiny. How dare Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, or Mia Farrow before them, adopt more than one Third World baby? Do they have nothing better to do with their money?

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.