snark.

[jlh]

Last night I read an essay Heidi Julavits wrote in March 2003 about snarkiness in literary book reviews. (I'd never read it before, though I'm sure some of you have.) It got me thinking about the review battles, all the talk about reader revolts, and specifically, about that particular kind of snarky review that is presented as a reader service. (Quotes from Julavitis in blockquote italics.)

This is wit for wit’s sake—or, hostility for hostility’s sake. This hostile, knowing, bitter tone of contempt is, I suspect, a bastard offspring of Orwell’s flea-weighers. I call it Snark, and it has crept with alarming speed into the reviewing community…. Yes, perhaps this is the only sane response to a publishing world prone to over-exaggeration and generalization of a hysterical sort. …
If snark is a reaction to this sheer and insulting level of hyperbole, fine; but should the writer, who is a pawn in this system, who has negligible say over the design of his book jacket or even his title, who would never be so presumptuous to compare himself to Dickens, should this disdain be delivered unto him?

Replace the publishing hype machine with "rabid fangirls" and it makes more sense for fandom, for as much as we shout to the BNF's to "control your fangirls" frequently the writers don't even know what they're doing, much less have any ability to control them. Given that we're in the midst of some so-called "readers revolt" I'm not sure that even making the attempt would go over well, anyway. And if the fanfic writer in question isn't even a BNF, but just someone who wrote one story that people liked a lot, does that require a corrective?

Maybe snark was a critical attempt to compete, on an entertainment level, with the Anthony Lanes of the world, critics who write witheringly and hilariously about movies that will nonetheless go on to sell millions of tickets and win twelve Oscars. Lane and Denby make us feel like cozy ex-pats in a country of higher standards; we are the giggling, minuscule minority. We also see those movies. Book reviewers who adopt this tone when reviewing literary fiction are about as humorous as cow tippers; as a result, they guarantee a book that might have sold 4,000 copies, will now sell 800. And nobody will read that book, not even the literary types, who are off watching Titanic with a knowing smirk.

I've seen a lot of essays compare reviewing fanfic to reviewing anything else and I must say, I'm baffled at the comparison. As Julavits says about movies vs. fiction, the parallel doesn't hold because the audience is different and the review has more of an effect. Also, movie reviewers (and music reviewers for the most part) aren't in the same community as the creators of the work they are reviewing, while book reviewers, and fanfic reviewers, most certainly are. It doesn't mean one should pull one's punches, but it does mean that one isn't exactly speaking truth to power here. The snark is fun, but it hasn't been generated by the work itself, by that desire to put a pin in a puffed-up balloon. I would think there would be a balance, someplace, between being entertaining for one's readers, and being of service to one's readers, and thence to the writer one is reviewing. Otherwise the reviewer is just crushing the writer under the wheels of their industry, and I don't get the point of that.

The upshot, however, is this: snark is a reflexive disorder, whether those who employ it realize it or not; the pointlessness of fiction only comes back to suggest the pointlessness of its commentator. The real question then becomes: If you don’t believe in this, what do you believe in? What do you care about? What is the purpose of this destructive clear-cutting, if you don’t have anything to suggest in its place, save your own career advancement? Reading many reviews these days (ones that aren’t regurgitated press copy, ones that are purportedly “critical”), I have the feeling of dust settling on a razed landscape, in which nothing is growing, in which nothing can grow. And this is what makes me depressed, and then angry, and then invigorated by the possibilities that every wasteland suggests.

I'm on record as being more about the positive than the negative (just check my username) and I grow even more so as I make my way through graduate school. It's easy to criticize, to pull something apart with relish. It's hard to talk interestingly about what one wants to see, about how something might have been improved, or heaven forfend, to actually praise a work. It seems on the surface that smart criticism is negative, but I think it's more interesting—and ultimately more helpful for the writer and the reader—to talk about what does work when you talk about what doesn't. Besides, anyone who's paid attention to Hollywood or the publishing or recording industries know that the people with the real power aren't the ones who say No. They're the ones who say Yes.

So what am I saying here? Ultimately, I think snark is loads of fun to read (and write), but that fun is in relation to how puffed up, and how removed, the target of the snark is. Otherwise, one is like the cow tippers of Julavits's metaphor. Not to mention that I think it can affect what is written. It seems to me that the reviewers become popular yes, because they are reflecting a general taste, but also because they are good, and funny, writers. But their popularity serves to normalize a certain standard, and once that standard is set up, why wouldn't people write to the standard? And if they don't care to, why would they keep banging their head against that particular wall? I mean, there is strength of mind, and then there is masochism. So that's one problem.

The other is a culture of negativity that I'm not sure does anyone any favors—that razed landscape in which nothing can grow that Julavits speaks of. Sure, there's a lot of a lot of squee, and while one could make a case that the snark is outweighing the squee, they aren't about the same thing. I'm not talking about snark regarding canon here; I'm fully in favor of that. But to imply that those fanfic writers who are dismayed by this sort of thing aren't "tough enough to take it" just furthers an adversarial relationship between the reader and the writer, and that leads to a lot more drama than any of us need.

As a writer, I'm not asking anyone to just swallow my writing whole. (Then again, my writing is the sort of light comic romance that I can't imagine would ever appeal to the snarkers, so I'm not even talking about me—I was out of this game before I even started.) And granted, I may be musing in this direction because I just came off a writer's panic of such epic proportions that I couldn't even post to LJ. But I like to think that snark is an easy, and ultimately rather empty, pleasure and we're capable, as a collective, of something more than that.

Comments

[mahoni.livejournal.com]

It's easy to criticize, to pull something apart with relish. It's hard to talk interestingly about what one wants to see, about how something might have been improved, or heaven forfend, to actually praise a work.

I completely agree with this. I also think that one reason why it's so hard to write a positive review is because there's a stigma attached to liking something: one has to work very, very hard to make it impossible for anybody to accuse them of fangirling (or fanboying) something.

Another reason seems to be that the grade school mentality we used to be disciplined against - i.e. don't make jokes at others' expense, no matter how funny you think they are, because that's rude - is now actually considered an earmark of wit and proof that one is an independent thinker rather than just going along with a fad. (Ironic, given that snark is something anybody with half a brain can do, because all it takes is aping your favorite snarky talking head.)

And then there's the fact that nice isn't news.

Seriously, people who want to say something nice about somebody's work, if they're not already people everyone listens to they'll have a hell of a time convincing anyone to pay any attention, or positive attention, to them.

*grumble* The snarky mean review trend, whether in mainstream or fan culture, really really bugs me.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

all it takes is aping your favorite snarky talking head

Who are being snarky about like, WORLD EVENTS, not FANFIC. Proportion, people. (I say this because Olbermann is my TV boyfriend at present.)

I think that some mainstream snarky reviews are fine—Juvatis cites Anthony Lane, who I love with the fire of a million suns, but he saves the snark for gigantor review-proof Hollywood blockbusters. He doesn't bring it for little indie films; if they disappoint he sounds genuinely disappointed. And he often LOVES things, as does Denby. (I think Denby tends to be a little hysterical, myself, but at least you know where he stands.) I think it's fine to be snarky if you're brave enough to balance that by saying, "but THIS, THIS is why I love movies/music/books/snarry fanfic" because my god, you must love it if you're consuming so much of it.

I have no time for the attitude that liking something makes you lame. I mean, are we all 19-year-old boys here? Not even hipsters, because hipsters often do like things; they just want to like something that no one else likes, be the ones to "discover" it. But if you read what they say as they are discovering it, they are frequently blissed out and proud of it, sometimes drowning in hyperbole. My best friend is a hipster and when you go to his place he'll play like, 35 different bands for you and he's so excited about finding good stuff. Look at the bloggers; they're the same. So where this attitude comes from, I'm really not sure.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Ooh, juicy lj-goodness! ITA. It's funny that you mentioned snark against canon since that's where I've found snark can be sometimes a positive thing. That is, either it helps you dissect just what bothers you about something that's being done in canon--which in turn helps you understand it more and maybe turn your mind towards what would be better--or else canon stands up to it. I've found my respect for HP-canon, for instance, has actually grown since I've snarked through book after book, because I can see how it actually does work. Or it can sometimes really show what it's consistently saying.

But still, fanfic is a different issue. It really does come down to what community you're creating, what's going to be acceptable. For instance, laughing at really bad fanfic--fic that probably the authors themselves will laugh at once they finish puberty--can be funny, I admit. Though I would do it away from the eyes of the person in question because it's not meant to be constructive. It's funny that someone gives Sirius and Snape mpreg blond twins, one of whom is a Mary Sue, but it's not always constructive to point that out to the person's face because that's more about their fantasy than the writing, if that makes sense. If you were talking to the person it would be more constructive to seriously point out how the story is problematic--Jassaline can do everything, everyone loves her, Sirius and Snape probably wouldn't wear matching friendship bracelets due to XYZ in canon, etc.

The most dangerous area, I always feel, is the snarking on something that's trying--whether it's doing well or not--to actually be good. If someone is laying out things that they want to matter, risking emotional scenes about something they care about...that's the kind of thing that you need to either have a feeling of safety or a LOT of courage to post, and even the really courages (i.e. "tough-skinned") people will lose interest if the feedback isn't giving them anything. I'm not talking about having few readers or fewer reviews, but if the response is that people are rejecting the attempts at seriousness.

I think that's why at least I've always felt, that some reviews mean more than others. I don't understand authors who snark at their reviews for being just squee or act like it's the reviewers job to respond a certain way--some people can only really offer their appreciation and not much more. But I do get why an author would appreciate either hearing how something didn't quite work and why, or how it did. I remember one of my favorite "reviews" I ever got--and I stumbled upon it by accident. I had left a review at FA and happened to run across the author's lj where she was talking about how much she liked the review. She didn't say, "SM is so witty and her review is well-written!" She loved it because I had told her specifically that certain things she was trying to put across, what she was trying to do with a character--worked. I think sometimes that's got to be one of the most exciting things for a writer, to see they've been able to communicate something.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Back in the day there was a whole thing about people who "gave good review" because you felt they had actually read and dealt with the story in an appropriately thoughtful (relative to how thoughtful the story was) manner, and replied as such. It IS exciting to get reviews like that. But it's really nice to get merely squeeful reviews, too, because someone liked it enough to poke out of lurking to say, "I really liked this!" One always wonders if one is posting into the void, and having confirmation that one is not is always welcome, however superficial that confirmation may be.

I don't know why so many people want to look a gift horse in the mouth, be they reviewers who snark or writers who want only a certain kind of response. Control issues, much? But that gets back to the whole socialization on LJ issue, and people with a serious lack of skills or of a sense of proportion, which ties into the mpreg example you use. Like, try to tailor your response to the situation please.

even the really courageous (i.e. "tough-skinned") people will lose interest if the feedback isn't giving them anything.

Truer words ne'er spoken. I don't know what in that concept is so difficult to understand for some people.

[zorb]

One of the things that was bewildering and eventually irritating about my grad school experience was the extent of textual criticism. There's valid, critical thought, and then there's "Let's see how many ways we can find to nitpick this text!" I wasn't in that habit (and I think a lot of it was a boys' club thing, which goes down a whole 'nother line of fandom thought that I'll avoid) and it took a while for me to adapt to the habit of negativity as the primary goal. I like to snark at my media, but there's got to be love in the snark, too.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I think it's also a general grad school thing, and I get it, and it's weird. But part of it, I think, is when you are reading a pile of books that are acknowledged classics and you want to be the angry young man type and throw a brick through the establishment window. I understand that impulse, but we are always standing on the shoulders of what came before us, however much we want to be all punk rock about it. It's just something that a certain type of intellectuals never want to hear; they want to think of themselves as entirely original thinkers. Whatever, says I.

[blackholly.livejournal.com]

It is much more easy to articulate what's wrong with something than what's right with it. I also think that disliking something is far less embarassing than praising it--it's invariably evidence of refined taste to disdain. :D

Reviews being currency in the fanfiction world further problematizes the relationship between fanfic reviewing and the reviewing of novels or films. It seems that the nature of a "review" itself is complicated by two distinct audiences it is meant for -- (a) as a means of payment for an author and (b) as a service to readers to help their selection of reading material.

Also, wow, those were some depressing sales figures!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Also, wow, those were some depressing sales figures!

Well, y'know, literary fiction.

It seems that there is beginning to be this distinction between the reviews one leaves as comments on the fic or on it's board, which are more about payment, and reviews that one puts in one's own journal, whether as part of a rec list or not, which are more about "reader service." And that's fine, and it's certainly appropriate to point out if one has problems with a widely squeed-over fic in one's own journal. But some of the snark is just to be funny, and has a momentum of its own, and then gets out of proportion with whatever one is snarking over.

Also, people have a lot of unexpressed anger and resentment, which I feel they should deal with in therapy.

My god, how refined can your taste be if you're reading fanfic? I mean, seriously. It's so lame, the whole, "this just didn't come up to my exacting standards." I always feel like, dude, relax those standards and have more fun. You can like things and still take them seriously. But you know, having a best friend who is a crazy rock snob led me at an early age to leave the phrase "guilty pleasures" behind as much as possible. I have my relapses, but I like what I like.

[adjudicated.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate this post. It's so articulate, as are the comments in response. I really admire your ability to post about what some might see as controversial topics in such a thoughtful and well-spoken manner.