Saturday, October 04, 2003

Snark is as Snark does 

So Laura Miller, fresh off filletting Chuck Palahniuk's latest book for Salon and whining about what books kids should read for school for the NYT, tries to define snark. And here last night I was wondering why the whole brouhaha about Snarkwatch had disappeared all of a sudden after being such a hot topic. Couldn't it have just stayed buried? Snark is just so...August.

Although this section, where Ms. Miller considers the question of authors who simply view all negative reviews as "snark", did amuse me a whole lot:

"Why not let authors lash out at their tormentors, giving back as good as they've gotten, serving up great, vile spoonfuls of the critics' own medicine? An odd position for a book reviewer to take, but in fact it's fairly self-serving. In my experience, the author who responds publicly to a negative review usually does such a poor job of defending himself that he winds up validating the reviewer's judgement. Also, it attracts attention and readers to the original review."

Somehow I think the use of the term "he" was no accident.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?