A Culture of Snark

[reetpleat]

I see a lot of Groucho Marx when I watch Alan Alda in M*A*S*H.

I used to think it was hilarious when they one-upped Frank Burns or pulled a prank on him, but now I also think it was really unprofessional for doctors at a hospital. Maybe I'm turning into a dowager, but I really wouldn't want to have any of them for coworkers. (Yes, I know it's just a show. )

I saw a documentary on the mash units of Korea. Apoparently the show is not far from the truth. OF course they all had crew cuts and were more straightlaced in a way. But the drinking, pranks and craziness was very real. A little more like Animal House than the marx brothers I guess.

But remember, they were not reghular army and trying to deal with something I am not sure I coule ever deal with.

 

[reetpleat]

This is one of the lamest snarks and always has been: back in the '30s, folks threw around such annoying phrases as "No kidding, Sherlock!" and "Well, ain't you a regular Einstein!" Snarky then, snarky now.

.

Yeah, but if you say it in that high pitched nasal gangster voice, it 8isn't so bad. A rgular einstein eh?

Makes me think of the three stooges or bugs bunny.

I don't know if I would call Bugs snarky. He pulls it off.

 

[scotrace]

Oh but what fun!

"No {kiddin'} Dick Tracy, where'd ya park the squad car?"

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I wonder whether snarkiness becomes more acceptable once it's sugarcoated with nostalgia.


Sure, plenty of folks liked Groucho's and Bugs's snarkiness back in the day. (And plenty did not!) But then again, plenty of folks like Letterman's snarkiness now. And perhaps everyone will love Dave six decades from now.

.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

So ... the further away we are from a snarky comment's time and place of origin, the more palatable it is?

.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

So ... the further away we are from a snarky comment's time and place of origin, the more palatable it is?

.

I don't know. Groucho's comments were palatable then, but then again, he was a comedian. His comments weren't taken seriously. At least I'd think so to a certain extent. Maybe away from a movie set his comments were laughed at by some and were insulting to others. This smart allec snark we have now may not be taken seriously in later years or it may be taken more seriously, almost unbearable. A sort of "how dare you!" attitude. Could be both.

 

[Paisley]

Partly it is nostalgia. But also, some of the people they were snarky to aren't those we care about anymore. For instance, rich, pompous old goats and their wives. How many of those do you see around anymore (aside from Trump)? Or a rival neighborhood gang--I can't think of a modern equivalent for that for most of us. But if it's your political views or way of life that's being skewered, it isn't so cute.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the original point I was making has been lost -- it has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with the oversaturation of today's culture with snarkiness.

We remember Groucho and W.C. Fields and Bugs Bunny and Fred Allen and Henry Morgan and Dorothy Parker and Alexander Woollcott and the various other -- if you must call them that -- snarks of the past precisely because they were the exception rather than the rule. Sure, there were wiseguys on the street who'd make cracks -- but try and snark in the school room or in the office or to your ma or pa, and you'd just as likely get a cuff across the mouth as you would a laugh. Even in my own childhood, in the late 60s/early 70s you snarked in class at risk of a ruler across your knuckles. The culture of smirking nastiness we have today did not exist then.

Satirists -- good satirists -- are the salt in the cultural stew. Snarks, of the tedious Mr. Ain't I Clever McSmartmouth sort, are like dumping an entire box of salt in that stew. Some folks might like to choke that down and call it good -- but not me, thanks.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Today is an exaggeration. We exaggerate ourselves, we exaggerate the media, we exaggerate our troubles and opinions, we exaggerate a lot of things. We exaggerate something to a point in which it is not taken seriously because it is so exaggerated. In some cases, to me, it seems like we cannot appreciate what he have so we condemn it instead. I can't speak for everyone on earth, though. That would be an exaggeration.

As for younger people, like myself, I think the reason for them to insult (snark) everything is that they can't comprehend or relate to it, and it is automatically uncool, bad, or just plain weird. After giving visits to my high school for 4 and a half years, I've literally seen the students since my graduating year come and go. I graduated in 2003. They generally behave when I walk in with a suit and hat. I give them a dead stare if they don't. I'd just ignore it.

I think it also depends on where you are and how you were raised. I know plenty of people (not members here) who are not snarky. They respect you and your opinions and don't backtalk. Some places are more snarky than others and it has nothing to do with an age group. Parents also seem to be looked down upon by their kids. If I had a child and they gave me an attitude (snark), I'd spank them. But now this is considered abuse and you can be charged for that. :eusa_doh:

There's a sort of an organized free for all, no holds barred trend going on.

 

[dhermann1]

I've long felt that a lot of this started with Lenny Bruce. Before him most comics were not "topical". Sid Caesar and Steve Allen were seldom if ever heavily satirical, but they were still hip, as well as funny. Lenny Bruce was a real attack dog. He went for the jugular. But he was funny, and the things he attacked were worthy of ridicule. Since that time all comedians seem to think they have to be bitingly satirical, or they're not hip. It's more important to be hip and alienated than funny any more. Which of course leads to EXTREME unfunniness. Don Imus is a terrific example. His recent infamous comments were egregiously disgusting, vile and UNfunny ad hominum attacks. They had nothing to do with the people they were directed against at all. There was no reality or concealed truth to recognize. Just pure snottiness. I think maybe in the 18th and early 19th centuries you can find political nastiness on a par with today's snarkiness, but even there, it was pretty much political. You wouldn't hear this kind of thing in polite society.
So, what to do? How to cope? How to react? Well, by example. As Thumper's momma told him. "If ya can't say somethin' nice, don't say nothin' at all." It's frustrating to see it everywhere, but I think the best thing to do is maintain your dignity, and if someone asks, you can let them know how you feel.

 

[Parallel Guy]

I guess I think it depends on whose ox is being gored. Political edginess (snarkiness), I have a tolerence for. It's an expression of frustration and free speech that allows us to non-violently communicate. Those of us who feel marginalized need an outlet that perhaps draws a little blood.

The point where it crosses the line in my mind is the adolescent attacks on personal lives. Celebrity or not, we don't really need to cripple others with "humor." And it is truly adolescent. It is an attempt to seem worldly and blase by showing that nothing is sacred or of value. As a kid, that is fine because you need to find out what you really do believe has value, but as an adult you should be secure enough to accept that respect is more of a reflection on you than on the ones for whom you show respect.

 

[celtic]

i'm completely sick of it as well.

simply because it seems that everyone shares my personality now.

i used to be known as sardonic, sarcastic, morbid, snarky a**hole,

but now i'm just the norm.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Cheek, they call it!

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!

-dixon cannon

 

[Lee Lynch]

I think the original point I was making has been lost -- it has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with the oversaturation of today's culture with snarkiness.

We remember Groucho and W.C. Fields and Bugs Bunny and Fred Allen and Henry Morgan and Dorothy Parker and Alexander Woollcott and the various other -- if you must call them that -- snarks of the past precisely because they were the exception rather than the rule. Sure, there were wiseguys on the street who'd make cracks -- but try and snark in the school room or in the office or to your ma or pa, and you'd just as likely get a cuff across the mouth as you would a laugh. Even in my own childhood, in the late 60s/early 70s you snarked in class at risk of a ruler across your knuckles. The culture of smirking nastiness we have today did not exist then.

Satirists -- good satirists -- are the salt in the cultural stew. Snarks, of the tedious Mr. Ain't I Clever McSmartmouth sort, are like dumping an entire box of salt in that stew. Some folks might like to choke that down and call it good -- but not me, thanks.

I'm seeing your meaning.
I feel differently when watching Groucho than when a friend or relative gets rude in a conversation. With Groucho, you see it coming, it was his shtick, and if you didn't like it you didn't have to watch. His comments were witty, whereas the snark of today has alot more to do with an insecurity of some sort that motivates people to prove themselves superior by putting someone down.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Very depressing.

 

[Stanley Doble]

I agree. Sarcasm and irony, way overdone, stopped being funny a long time ago. What is more I watched Letterman's first late night show, and a few since, and in all that time he has never handed me a laugh. I see what he is trying to do but it always falls short, always seems lame. I thought that was the point. I thought you were supposed to laugh at his lameness which I suppose you could, if you were high, or drunk, or 14 years old.

There was one night when his guest was Bette Davis, I believe this was the last interview she did before she died. She was thin frail and tottery but she still had it over Letterman like a tent. At one point he even remarked, "you know, if this was a fight they would have stopped it by now".

Bette Davis interview. Watch a star make an entrance. March 1987, 10 days from her 79th birthday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zFZx1Xpddk

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I think snark and sarcasm have their place. I love early SNL, Letterman and Daria (MTV) as a few examples. I do agree with Lizzie:

I think the original point I was making has been lost -- it has nothing to do with nostalgia and everything to do with the oversaturation of today's culture with snarkiness.

We remember Groucho and W.C. Fields and Bugs Bunny and Fred Allen and Henry Morgan and Dorothy Parker and Alexander Woollcott and the various other -- if you must call them that -- snarks of the past precisely because they were the exception rather than the rule. Sure, there were wiseguys on the street who'd make cracks -- but try and snark in the school room or in the office or to your ma or pa, and you'd just as likely get a cuff across the mouth as you would a laugh. Even in my own childhood, in the late 60s/early 70s you snarked in class at risk of a ruler across your knuckles. The culture of smirking nastiness we have today did not exist then.

Satirists -- good satirists -- are the salt in the cultural stew. Snarks, of the tedious Mr. Ain't I Clever McSmartmouth sort, are like dumping an entire box of salt in that stew. Some folks might like to choke that down and call it good -- but not me, thanks.

Snark has crossed the line into cruelty and smug indifference to the feelings of others. It's everywhere. It's mean and vapid. I think we should leave snark to the professionals.

 

[Stanley Doble]

It is important to remember that W C Fields, Groucho, Alex Woollcott, et al could be very cutting if they wanted to, but that was far from the only talent they had. We remember certain lines but forget that they were a small part of their performance. They could have cut those lines and still been successful entertainers. If you cut the snark from a modern performance what would you have left?

 

[scottyrocks]

I could hug you for writing this, honestly,haha. The answer is no, you're not the only one who got tired of it a long time ago. What really gets me is, as you hinted, the feeling that it's -necessary- to be snarky and "witty". As if you're considered a lesser person if you don't pull it off 24/7. The worst is when people fail to differentiate between snark and outright rudeness. And then they all say "Geez, what's your problem, I was just being SARCASTIC." And that just further strains conversations. I just think it's such a nuisance, and really don't understand modern culture's obsession with it. Then again, there's apparently alot I don't understand about modern culture, so maybe it's just me. [huh]

I know a particular teenager who, when rude to his mother, follows with, 'It was a joke!' It was not a joke. I'll stop here before the top of head blows off.

 

[Gregg Axley]

It is important to remember that W C Fields, Groucho, Alex Woollcott, et al could be very cutting if they wanted to, but that was far from the only talent they had. We remember certain lines but forget that they were a small part of their performance. They could have cut those lines and still been successful entertainers. If you cut the snark from a modern performance what would you have left?

People that should be asking "do you want to supersize that to a value meal?"
Yes Fields and Marx (the ones that spoke ) were very good at snark.
But they honed it over many years before they were in film.
Today? It's some writers that think their audience knows talent when they see it. Apparently not.