I love reading David Denby. In fact, one of my most inspired lesson plans came about as a direct result of his work. The New Yorker published what was to become the first chapter of Denby's Great Books about ten or twelve years ago. It so happened that I was teaching my first year of Comp for the College Bound and decided to start the year with Brave New World. It occurred to me that Denby's exploration of the ravages of pop culture would provide a really nice framework for a reading of Huxley. So I created this great plan involving classroom discussions of the novel; a viewing of Sleeper which has some overly obvious references to the novel, but just at the right level for high school seniors; a reading of Denby's essay; and finally a terrific (if I say so myself) writing assignment. I asked them to write a letter to the editor of the magazine strongly agreeing or disagreeing with Denby's main thesis and to illustrate their position with passages from the novel. The assignment sheet gave the kids three quotes (most coming from the wonderful discussion between Mustapha Mond and the Savage) to use, but they were free to substitute others that would best serve their purpose. It sounds pretty sophisticated for a bunch of teenagers, but the responses were maybe the best I have ever received. I think they were so good because the novel is so wonderfully teachable and Denby is so consistently provocative.
Snark is a polemic blasting the coarsened tone of discourse we are all forced to listen to by explaining the difference between Snark (basically mean spirited ad hominem attacks that appear to be satirical or ironical but are really just vicious insults) and the legitimate literary forms of satire and irony.
There is a difference, for example, between the fact-based and well researched invective on The Daily Show or the delicious irony of The Colbert Report and the vicious name calling practiced by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, sophomoric blogs like Hot or Not (ugh), and Sarah Palin.
The use of snark appeals to our basest instincts. It delights in attacking sexual orientation, old age, and slips of the tongue. It is constantly on the look out for little missteps that can be turned into political capital. It feels no need to tell the truth, or even find out what the truth is. Instead, it deals in caricatures, innuendo, and outright lies. And since it is usually anonymous and tends to reside in cyberspace, it isn't subject to libel laws. It allows its purveyors to act like kids on a playground, calling names and running to hide behind the nearest bush, or swingset, or teacher.
Denby, a passionate advocate of first ammendment rights, isn't suggesting that we censor the wealth of snark out there, but just that we recognize it when we see it. Because, just like in "The Hunting of the Snark," not all snarks are harmless. "For the Snark was a Boojum, you see." Forgive my incredibly profound reference to Lewis Carroll. I just ripped off the connection from Denby's wonderful book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
""For the Snark was a Boojum, you see."
Hee hee!! :)
I remember looking "snark" up not long ago to see if my usage was in fact what I was going for. It says "snark" is a combination of the words "snide" and "remark" on Urbandictionary.com.
Looking at synonyms for "snide," I see: nasty, sneering, malicious, mean, cynical, unkind, hurtful, sarcastic, disparaging, spiteful, insinuating.... Thinking back on how I used the word, which was in a blog writing a brief review of an book, I think I used the words "gentle snark." I think I was right on with using it in that way.
Not only is it difficult to distinguish between snark and satire/irony, but I think there are varying levels of snark, too.
I like reading David Sedaris. Part of me wants to call him a "snarky" writer, but really he is just more ironic, and if he *is* snarky, it is usually the self-deprecating kind of snark.
Snark can be subtle, too. I have found that the French (to be a little snarky myself, lol) have turned subtle snark into a high art form, along with haute cuisine and haute couture. You don't even realize you have been insulted until some time later, when you realize you have a knife in your gut.
To me, snark is like Twinkies: once in a while eating one or two is good fun, but a steady diet of them only makes a body sick. I have been known to binge on snark. It can be a very attractive thing, especially when it is someone who is on a rant with whom I agree. Sounds like David Denby is the film critic version of Dr. Andrew Weil when it comes to snark.
The lesson plan up there makes me want to be a kid and a student in your class again. :)
"Sounds like David Denby is the film critic version of Dr. Andrew Weil..." I wish their were an "edit comment" feature -- I want to write "critical writer" instead. He's not just a film critic anymore, but a writer as well, huh.
Post a Comment