Yesterday one of my posts--a light-hearted satirical version of the White House budget meeting with Republican Congressional leaders--got more attention than usual, for which I'm grateful to the community. But one of the comments got me thinking. Somebody thought I should have labeled the post (preferably in the title!) as snark, so that this commenter, who did not want to waste her time with snark, would know not to take it seriously, in fact probably to skip it entirely. I have several reactions to this comment.
First, is it really necessary to have to remind people when we are joking? Are people so uptight and serious these days that they don't recognize satire when they see it? I have heard of instances where people have fallen for Onion stories or similar spoofs, and I always shake my head and laugh. I cross-posted here another item recently which purported to be the minutes of a planning commission meeting in Abbotabad when they had to approve the construction of Osama Bin Laden's hideout, and another community member felt the need to add a snark label just so people wouldn't really think I might have the minutes of an actual Pakistani planning board meeting. Once I entitled a post on my blog "Global Warming disproved!" and I always get a kick out of the fact that this title probably attracts some climate change deniers to my blog. I've done a few other posts in the same vein, and I don't care if not everybody gets the joke. It amuses me to write these kinds of posts, and I don't feel the need to label them. In fact, I would much prefer not to label them, just for the fun of making some people realize a few sentences or paragraphs in, that the whole thing is a put-on.
Second, a piece can be humorous and still have a serious point. In fact, I think humor and ridicule may be the most effective ways to deal with some subjects. Republicans, for example. Taking my piece on Osama bin Laden's hideout as another example, I could have written a legal-style brief citing the many reasons why elements of the Pakistani military must have known Bin Laden was hiding out in that country, or I could make up a fictitious and absurd planning commission meeting to prove the same point. Both approaches are valid. (And I spend enough time writing legal briefs in real life, so I'd rather blog humorously, at least some of the time.)
Third, there is a difference between snark and satire. I don't particularly like snark either, and I'm a bit annoyed that people felt the need to label two of my posts here in that manner, just because they were not serious, factual pieces. Snark connotes sarcasm, snideness, put-down, superiority. Snark is childish. Satire on the other hand connotes wit and cleverness. It is elegant social criticism. Of course I eschew the former and aspire to the latter (not always successfully, but I try). Anyway, I've noticed quite a bit of snark in the comments on this site; not so much in the diaries, which tend to be pretty earnest. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to call others out for being snarky. That in itself is kind of snarky.
Finally, how sad that some people say they don't have time for humor. Fortunately, they are in the minority. But even if humor is not your thing, try to understand its power as a political tool. Tina Fey did as much or more than Katie Couric to help expose Sarah Palin. Let's just try to lighten up and enjoy ourselves.