In an attempt to salvage certain portions of my mental and spiritual health, I have decided to embark on a brief experiment. Over this day and the following six, I am going to compose this blog without resorting to what some in the welt in which we schmerz call “snark.” Which is not to say that I’m going to all of a sudden like everything, and go all weak-minded. No. Rather, it means I am going to step back from what some might call a relentless approach to sarcasm. No gratuitous asides about a young fellow blogger’s lack of self-copy-editing skills, for instance. No cheap albeit justified shots at another critic’s remarkably kitschy camouflage pants in the comments section, for another instance. Just thrifty, brave, clean and reverent observation with only good-natured jokes and less overall smart-alecky-ness.
I guess when someone called me an “insufferable twat” on a comments thread at another site the other day, it cut me to the quick. Maybe as I enter my twilight years I’m going all weak-willed, and am too hung up on being liked. Maybe I just find the prerequisites of the snark-ornamented perspective too exhausting. Or maybe I’m just curious to see if I can actually do it. In any case, here goes. Whether this rule will also apply to my Friday column at the Auteurs’, which can get pretty nyah-nyah-nyah-ish, is something I’ll have to discuss with my editor. In the meantime: excelsior!
I wouldn’t normally encourage the purveyance of something others might find “insufferable,” but in this case, you shouldn’t go through with it. The reason is, simply, you’re funny! When you’re being snide, it’s also hilarious as well (and tell that to the person who gave you the label).
Please leave the nyah-nyah-nyah in your Friday article, at least.
In all fairness, Glenn, everyone who writes and comments on the internet is an “insufferable twat” to a certain extent. It really is about measuring how much twattage you exude. Twattage in measured doses is better than excess twattage which is more common.
It’s sort of similar to the dick, pussies and assholes speech at the end of “Team America”.
And, as Matthias said, your snark is actually funny and, I would add, truthful.
Thanks, fellas. I’m giving this a shot anyhoo because taking a break from indignation might help my blood pressure. The trick is, does NOT EXPRESSING indignation actually help one experience less indignation? I’ll have to consult that book on Buddhism I’ve got here somewhere…
But the piercing snark is what keeps me coming back!
But seriously, I’ve never thought of your little ribs at anyone to be nasty or ‘snarky’, but then I’ve been accused of that same thing. So my opinion may not be the one to go by.
Either way, the internet is full of crybabies and I wouldn’t let it bother you too much.
I like your snark, too, although I can see your point. The trick – and it is actually difficult, though you’d think it wouldn’t be – is to only aim it at those who deserve it. I think you do for the most part. I mean, why feel bad about taking shots at Armond White? His career is currently based on that very thing.
It’s a fine line, though, because what actually constitutes “deserving” in this context? I can think of more examples beyond White, certainly, but in the spirit of this post I won’t name them.
I (and maybe that book on Buddhism, if you find it) would say that bottling up indignation is harmful at the very best, but that doing a bit of processing of that indignation could possibly be quite beneficial…going to the roots of that trigger, perhaps finding a bit of empathy for that person you’re reacting to who’s spraying their sad neuroses all over the net. But even if one doesn’t reach that point, in my experience it’s always been helpful to say to myself “Even if your take on this situation and this person’s behavior is 100% accurate, so what? Why are you allowing their behavior to cause you suffering?”
It can be argued that suppressing indignation is worse for your blood pressure than expressing it. But good luck!
The point, as A.B. correctly intuits, isn’t so much to suppress indignation as it is to work through it, to find out what truly warrants it, as opposed to shooting from the hip at everything that’s an annoyance, as justified as one’s annoyance may be. One of the funnier things about the internet is that you can point out how wrong/ill-advised/just plain dumb/what have you a given blogger or commenter is, and it doesn’t make much difference. They’re not going to stop, or even improve. I understand we must imagine Sisyphus happy and all, but still…
And now I’m gonna catch “Basterds” a second time! Later…
As much as I love stopping by your place on a daily basis – it’s the writing, pure and simple – I can occasionally be a bit turned off by the snark, partly because I can’t help thinking that some of the targets are, well, beneath you. But you get a lifetime pass for anything Armond-related: he has a regular, presumably paying, gig and yet week after week his reviews and related pieces are filled with truly mystifying contortions of the English language, never mind the actual content. I’m also convinced that he’s on a per-mention fee from the producers of “Torque.” Now that’s an unhealthy obsession.
Glenn,
I’m on board for this experiment. I’m sure the snark has fans, but I am certainly not one of them.
I was going to recommend this very thing to you Glenn as you seem to be overflowing with teh snark lately – but I was afeared you’d snark me. And I think it’s the worst aspect of the web – better to pretend you’re face to face with someone and how would you really respond.
Look at Wells, the dude is on his way to a Hate Attack – wherein you poison your mind and body with glib, cynical and hateful thoughts.
Bravo!
You know, the anti-snark contingent does absolutely have a point. I engage in snark from time to time, and get a certain kick out of it, and I don’t bully anyone or go after those who I don’t think have it coming. But then again, I’ve decided certain people have it coming, and who’s to say I’m right? Getting into a fist fight you have no hope of avoiding is one thing, but going out looking for one, even with someone who’s a more than willing participant, is something else.
Still, for a long time I’ve been kicking around the idea of writing a post on my blog that goes after, in a humorous fashion, a particular blogger. This is not a blogger that anyone – and really, I mean anyone – would pity for having the screws put to him, and I sincerely doubt that, should I write such a post, news of its existence would even make it back to him (though I would be pleased if it did). Sometimes you just have to get shit off your chest, and writing it on a napkin and then throwing it in the trash doesn’t offer the same catharsis.
Hey, Glenn, OT, but what did you think of the A Serious Man trailer?
Glenn, we like you, snarky or not. You are one of the best writers I have ever come across.
You know that if you do this Denby wins, right?
@ Dan Coyle: I like the “Serious Man” trailer. Looks like…a Coen Brothers movie!
If Denby wins, I’m moving to Canada.
I think “snark” is the wrong word for your particular brand of…well, of whatever the right word is. To me, “snark” implies a kind of knee-jerk cruelty, the internet equivalent of Nelson Muntz braying “Ha Ha!” at others’ misfortune. Whereas your own style of sarcastic meanness is more thoughtful, witty…satirical, one might call it. I have nothing against this experiment in introspection, but I want to emphasize that the Glenn Kenny humor is a cut above garden variety internet snark, even when it’s unduly mean.