Snark on the web

Snark is every where these days, and although I love words, I love new words, and I love new uses for old words, there's something about the sound that snark makes, the way it gets stuck in the front of your nose as you say it, that rubs me the wrong way.

Besides, it seems as though the media has sought out upon a circle-jerk of snarkiness, and it is vaguely unsettling to me. So, in the immortal footsteps of Lewis Carroll, I went on a snark hunt of my own, trying to figure out what the hell the word means, and why people keep on using it.

A sensible place to begin any linguistic hunt is with the OED. They provide three definitions: as a noun, a snark is an imaginary animal (a la Lewis Carroll). Two uses as a verb: to snore or snort, or to nag or to find fault with.

The Urban Dictionary is more helpful in this case. They define snark as:

A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.

This definition immediately brought to mind teenagers, and, as such, my youngest brother. I've heard plenty of his highbrow conversations with his emo indie friends that deftly fuse sarcasm and cynicism.. And besides, he's my reference for all things hip. I figured snark might be the new apathy. Ben, though, proved a false lead. He'd heard the word once at a debate tournament, written it off as terminally un-hip, and moved on.

So, I turned to the internet writ large: 109 google news hits contained the word snark. I eliminated those that were links to productions of Lewis Carroll plays, and began my exploration.

As it turns out, the press refers to themselves (and each other) as snarky A LOT. It's some sort of badge of honor. What originally piqued my interest was this article in Newsweek about John Edward's failure to attract media attention with his poverty tour. Hidden inside parentheses, Newsweek has a ready explanation for it:

Edwards's poverty campaign echoes RFK's, but times have changed (and Edwards is no RFK).(He does have a snarkier press corps than RFK. Not only did reporters not criticize the size of Kennedy's Virginia mansion, they wrote fawning prose about the senator in the hopes of scoring an invitation.)

Interesting. Particularly because I would assume that the writer in question is part of this *snarky* press corps, right? I thought to myself "wow. What a different article this would be if they covered the poverty tour, instead of covering how no one covers the poverty tour."

Jamison Foser, my future husband, wrote an insightful article for the organization "Media Matters" that nailed the issue on the head (Since I've yet to hear back from Keith Olbermann and Johann Hari, Jamison can join the list of official marriage proposals. Keith and Johann are just playing hard to get.)Here's how Foser breaks it down, pretty simple really (but read the rest of the article -- it's great):

America's political reporters don't like John Edwards, and have tried to destroy him.

In reference to the John Edwards haircut story that just won't die, Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic adds:

"There is a difference in the political reality: fairly or unfairly, a healthy chunk of the national political press corps doesn't like John Edwards. Fairly or unfairly, there's also a difference in narrative timing: when the first quarter ended, the press was trying to bury Edwards."

Wow. OK. Got it. The "snarky" press corps are actually actively fucking John Edwards out of a legitimate shot at the presidency. They've waged war. Awesome.

But I digress. Let's track some snarkiness on the internet. Who are the snarkiest of the snarkists? (Snarkist is my word -- you heard it here first).

So the word gets bandied around in articles, but also becomes an entire subgenre: the snark. You have The Snark-Free Corner (just good ol’ fashioned criticism) at Comic Book Resources, sworn enemy (only in my head) of The “Snark Attack,” and entire column of the Seattle Post Intelligencer where opinion columnists get to air their…snarky(?) views of the week. Here's a good one:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales seemed anxious to get away from congressional testimony and return to restoring the tarnished image of justice. The highly impeachable AG needs mentoring from O.J. Simpson on the patience and perseverance required for a mission where people wonder why the culprit is posing as the rescuer.

Even if they don't go so far as the SPI, apparently most publications have their resident snarkists. Leading the ranks is Michael Kinsley, who is "Dean of the Snark School of Journalism." Slate columnist Anne Applebaum points to NYT's Maureen Dowd as dealing in some trademark snark. Not to be outdone, apparently Dana Milbank at the Washington Post "supplies the paper's daily dose of snark with a page-two news column" (according to the UK's "The Guardian".) Female bloggers at the Yearly Kos promise to bring "the wine, cheese and, of course, the snark" to their round table discussion. Although he's not a journalist, Simon Cowell at least bears a mention for his label, The Sultan of Snark.

Right wing bloggers don't seem quite so in love with the snark, which makes me think the term is a leftist phenomenon (and hence, probably a communist plot). They accused The New Republic of "offering snark instead of substantive answers" in regard to the recent controversy over “Baghdad Diarist.” Additionally, although it makes me twitch to even provide this link, Michelle Malkin condemns Joe Biden's "snark and smarm" in response to the idiotic question he got during the Youtube debate from the right wing gun nut.

The Brits are, in typically snarky Brit fashion, trying to defend their elevated sense of rhetorical flourish. The Guardian calls American journalists out big time here:

You didn't invent snark, we had snottiness a long time ago. Except we won't do it in terms of a shtick of populism against a decadent elite, but apply the format to a besieged culturalist sensibility that appeals to our audience. Instead of a call to crash the gates, sound the alarm of barbarians at the gates.

(I have no real idea what that last sentence means) But ouch. Despite the British scorn, the word at least offers some playful literary endeavors. Here are some of my favorites:

This is probably my favorite snark-related sentence: “Behind the snark lies a genuine shiver of revulsion towards the complacency and sun-baked decadence of the Reagan ‘80s." We also have “snark-slinging hipster with an ax to grind.” ; “I can feel a snark itching to hit the keyboard.” ; “a snark bomb”; top-shelf snark; to snark on them. ; And, as a verb, I can't think of a good way to snark this.

PS: Even scientists love the snark. Apparently, there's a link between snarks and minors and contractions (probably doesn't mean folks under the age of 18, but I can't be sure). There are complicated charts and equations and science mumbo-jumbo that perhaps mathgimp can interpret. It contains the following sentence:

Every snark has Petersen's graph as a minor...Of course, it's not necessarily easy to find the series of contractions.

And there ya have it. A meandering journey through the minefield of internet-related snarks. I don't have any snarky, off hand comments to end this post with. I generally just write about things that interest me without really having much of a point, so if you've read this far for some sort of deductive brilliance at the end, you've just been snarked.