A Culture of Snark

[PrettySquareGal]

My issue isn't with segregated snark/shows. It's that it's everywhere. The news. Magazines. Everyday conversation. Social media. Etc.

 

[Guttersnipe]

The snarky, wise cracking, fast talkier sardonic cynics are quintessentially Golden Era icon, almost to the point of cliche . . .

. . . from literature: Philip Marloe, Nick Charles, Reginald Jeeves. From film: the big city cabbie; the apathetic beat cop; the smart ass kid on the corner (in the big city); practically every character Robert Mitchum and Humphrey Bogart ever played!

 

[LizzieMaine]

The snarky, wise cracking, fast talkier sardonic cynics are quintessentially Golden Era icon, almost to the point of cliche . . .

. . . from literature: Philip Marloe, Nick Charles, Reginald Jeeves. From film: the big city cabbie; the apathetic beat cop; the smart ass kid on the corner (in the big city); practically every character Robert Mitchum and Humphrey Bogart ever played!

True. But the preacher in the pulpit wasn't a snarker. The editor of your local newspaper wasn't a snarker. Your elected representative wasn't a snarker. Your schoolteacher wasn't a snarker. The everyday Joe Dinnerpail and Sally Punchclock wasn't a snarker. My grandparents, and your grandparents weren't snarkers. The overall mood of the actual Era, not that of literature, was actually one of rather stolid, earnest sincerity. People could be abrasive and sharp and sarcastic, but they usually were so because they sincerely believed in something, not because they were trying to maintain an "ironic" distance from people who actually believe in something.

Literature and movies aren't real life, and shouldn't be taken as guides in how people should act. Colorful snarky jackasses make enjoyable characters to read about -- precisely because they *aren't* real -- but when you meet them in real life, you don't want to actually spend time with them for very long.

I first posted on this topic nearly seven years ago. In the time since I don't think the situation has gotten any better. If anything, I believe that the explosion of social media has made it far, far worse. The Internet is full of people who H. L. Mencken wouldn't spit on if they were all afire, who think they're a lot cleverer than they actually are.

 

[Foxer55]

PrettySquareGal,

My issue isn't with segregated snark/shows. It's that it's everywhere. The news. Magazines. Everyday conversation. Social media. Etc.

Yup.

 

[Nobert]

To me it's the air of complacency that I find most irritating about the modern snark. It comes unearned, in a way. Not unlike the people who will use "Because science says so, that's why," in an argument and think that they've scored a coup beyond retaliation, despite the fact that they themselves may have done rather poorly in high-school chemistry.

I imagine a good deal of this comes from the current obsession with youth culture. It's not atypical for someone in their early 20s to adopt a posture of worldly cynicism. At that age, one is still in the hangover of adolescence and its emotional purities; intellectually developed but without the life experience to really back it up, and still not fully integrated into the routine of day-to-day challenges and compromise we call adulthood.
Indulging this affectation as youthful folly is one thing, but to embrace it makes our whole society look like it has ditched its wife for a blonde strumpet half its age and bought a Ferrari. I'm sure it's been capitalized on by that shadow cabinet that this thread's originator refers to as "The boys in marketing." I suspect Holden Caufield also shoulders some of the blame.

On the subject of snarkers of old, for what it's worth, I think Dorothy Parker was a bit of a poltroon. Her famous barbs and her whole "I'm suicidal, isn't it just darling?" schtick strike me the same way as present-day snarkery, adopting a world-weary sang froid to hide the fact that she was basically a coward. And Alexander Woollcott strikes me as one of the most thoroughly repulsive people I've ever heard of. I can't imagine how anyone befriended him except in a spirit of morbid fascination.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

The overall mood of the actual Era, not that of literature, was actually one of rather stolid, earnest sincerity. People could be abrasive and sharp and sarcastic, but they usually were so because they sincerely believed in something, not because they were trying to maintain an "ironic" distance from people who actually believe in something.

Yep. Then those people who believed in something were considered squares (probably by the boys in marketing to capture the youth sales) and it all went down hill from there.

 

[skydog757]

I'm with Norbert on this; I think a lot of it springs from youthful ignorance combined with a sense of entitlement. I hate to point to social and mass media and blame it for our current lack of manners, but I do think a lot of it does come into play. On television, kids are always smarter than the adults and characters make disparaging remarks directly to others with no consequence, just a laugh track. On youtube or Tosh .0, people are shown being injured, humiliated or both and rather than empathizing with them the audience finds humor in another's misfortune. What could be the most traumatic moment of some else's life is mild entertain for those watching. I recall that a couple of years ago youtube was saturated with postings where teens would throw a cup of liquid into the face of a fast food worker at the take out window and drive off laughing all the way. Having know elderly people and teens who have taken on such jobs just to try to make it, I can't tell you how much that infuriated me. It got so bad that youtube eventually banned all of those postings.

Point being, some young people seem to think that they're starring in their own movie. They think making "clever" remarks that put down others is just another scene. They've managed to dehumanize their victims and not allow them the same feelings that they have - doing things to others that they themselves would be outraged about if someone were to do that same to them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Sarcasm directed at the powerful is defiance.

Sarcasm directed at the powerless is oppression.

 

[skydog757]

Sarcasm directed at the powerful is defiance.

Sarcasm directed at the powerless is oppression.

+1

 

[Harp]

On the subject of snarkers of old, for what it's worth, I think Dorothy Parker was a bit of a poltroon. Her famous barbs and her whole "I'm suicidal, isn't it just darling?" schtick strike me the same way as present-day snarkery, adopting a world-weary sang froid to hide the fact that she was basically a coward. And Alexander Woollcott strikes me as one of the most thoroughly repulsive people I've ever heard of. I can't imagine how anyone befriended him except in a spirit of morbid fascination.

The Algonquin Round Table clique were a bit on the distaff side. :drama:

 

[Jennifer Hebert]

My grandparents, and your grandparents weren't snarkers....The Internet is full of people who H. L. Mencken wouldn't spit on if they were all afire, who think they're a lot cleverer than they actually are.

As an aside, my grandparents were pretty snarky--although I think my granny developed it as an adult to cope with her ornery, bayou-bred husband.

I definitely agree with what you're saying though, especially online. You really can't read the comments on any public site without seeing all sorts of sarcasm and vitriol. The only places where it doesn't take over are on private forums and a handful of heavily-moderated blogs. It's not much better away from the computer. People are more civil without the protection of anonymity, but snark - even bordering on hatefulness - seems to rule the day.

And don't even get me started on most modern "comedies." It seems like unless it's crude or crass, it isn't good (ha!) enough for mainstream comedy.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

As an aside, my grandparents were pretty snarky--although I think my granny developed it as an adult to cope with her ornery, bayou-bred husband.

I definitely agree with what you're saying though, especially online. You really can't read the comments on any public site without seeing all sorts of sarcasm and vitriol. The only places where it doesn't take over are on private forums and a handful of heavily-moderated blogs. It's not much better away from the computer. People are more civil without the protection of anonymity, but snark - even bordering on hatefulness - seems to rule the day.

And don't even get me started on most modern "comedies." It seems like unless it's crude or crass, it isn't good (ha!) enough for mainstream comedy.

I agree! And welcome to the FL!

 

[herringbonekid]

Frank Sinatra Jr. blamed it on the Fab Four. He once said, "I rue the day the Beatles came on the scene!". Seems the Beatles cheeky attitude and quick quips started this whole snarkey business. Frankly, I think it was the Rolling Stones!

i think Bob Dylan's early bored, cynical, confrontational, flippant interview style was more influential than the Beatles' more cheeky one. i'm sure they were influenced by his persona themselves.

 

[Edward]

i think Bob Dylan's early bored, cynical, confrontational, flippant interview style was more influential than the Beatles' more cheeky one. i'm sure they were influenced by his persona themselves.

Difference was that Bob was always so much cleverer than any of them. What I adore most about Dylan's writing is how he can wrap so much bile into what is, on the face of it, a pretty, melodic little pop song. Positively 4th Street being a great example.

 

[scrawlysteve]

Difference was that Bob was always so much cleverer than any of them. What I adore most about Dylan's writing is how he can wrap so much bile into what is, on the face of it, a pretty, melodic little pop song. Positively 4th Street being a great example.

It's also good that since the long distant age of the cheeky chappy Fab Four Bob hasn't totally fallen prey to a mawkish mellowing in old age. Amongst many examples of continuing bile Idiot Wind, and more recently, Pay in Blood spring to mind ....though I admit neither of these can be accused of being packaged as pretty, melodic little pop songs.

Mind you, even Dylan does occasionally slip ---the paean to Lennon at the end of Tempest being one (amongst few) examples .....

 

[herringbonekid]

the point isn't whether Dylan is a talented songwriter or not. the point is that in those early interviews his whole demeanour said very clearly 'i'm anti-establishment' and that would have been rapidly picked up on and copied by sectors of youth at the time. the fact that ironic detachment and a hip anti-establishment stance has now become a caricature of a caricature of a caricature of a caricature of a caricature, seems to be an irony that is lost on those who still buy into it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The most rebellious and radical thing anyone can do in the 21st Century is to completely reject the culture of "hipness."

 

[vitanola]

The most rebellious and radical thing anyone can do in the 21st Century is to completely reject the culture of "hipness."

You make an interesting point. One of the "Hippest" fellows that I know, a fairly prominent regional musician (and Barista) of about thirty summers, has been abandoning his ironic pose. Some years ago, after he made a disparaging comment about polka music I introduced him to the pre-war stuff, which is at once more consciously ethnic and musically interesting that much of the commercial post-war (and especially the post-1965) product. He was rather quickly smitten, and has amassed a pretty substantial collection of MP-3's of early Green Label records, though I cannot say that I yet hear it's influence in his own Blues-tinged music. One can hope.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Indeed. I don't think it's possible anymore for society as a whole to overcome the corrosive influence of the artificial concept of "hip" over the last sixty years -- a concept gleefully exploited by the Boys, who know that the "hipper" you are the more of a mark you are for consuming goods that show the world just how "hip" you are -- but it's possible to reach individuals who've grown up enough to see how ridiculous the whole concept really is.

 

[Nobert]

the point isn't whether Dylan is a talented songwriter or not. the point is that in those early interviews his whole demeanour said very clearly 'i'm anti-establishment' and that would have been rapidly picked up on and copied by sectors of youth at the time. the fact that ironic detachment and a hip anti-establishment stance has now become a caricature of a caricature of a caricature of a caricature of a caricature, seems to be an irony that is lost on those who still buy into it.

I think Dylan just kind of enjoyed being a pain in the ass.