Snark is easy, and therefore it has wiggled its way into all avenues of discourse, none so completely as the Internet and its abundance of forums on celebrity. It's most often a vapid and cowardly exercise, dashing off snotty comments with no accountability or logical justification, and pretty much everyone who strings words together is guilty of it at some point.
But there's snark, and there's snark. There are miles between Pitchfork and Perez Hilton, and the relative value of the snark in these venues should not be mistaken. (Perez Hilton is a nauseating parasite, while Pitchfork, for all its snark, engages more often than not in thoughtful discussion and criticism of some of the best pop music going.)
Check out Ebert's post--it's a long read, but worth it. And perhaps more of us who write for an audience can take his pledge, namely, to be better behaved:
I must resolve not to take cheap shots, except in those cases of truly bad movies [music, etc]; in such reviews, I believe readers understand the rules can be bent. In true snarking, there is no such thing as a cheap shot; the gold standard is the Good Shot. It's important sometimes to be reminded that it's okay to admire. To praise. To enjoy yourself. To admit to having a good time. To not care about what other, snarkier, people might say. I need to keep in mind the words of Robert Warshow I like to quote: A man goes to the movies [listens to music]. The critic must be honest enough to admit he is that man.
Hat tip: Sullivan
No comments:
Post a Comment