Snark - David Denby

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.