I used to like Maureen Dowd, meaning I enjoyed reading her
columns, not that I liked her personally.
I do not know her personally. I
just thought she was smart and articulate, which is another way of saying that
she thinks and writes not that differently that me.
Then, Maureen Dowd started calling the president “Barry”,
and berating him for being insufficiently aggressive in furthering his agenda,
a position many of the president’s disgruntled followers also held, but Maureen Dowd seemed more nasty about it, her burgeoning
vindictiveness conjuring “payback” for some White House snubbing, which I do
not know is true, it simply appeared that way from her insistently retributory tone.
The president got her back when he held forth at a recent “White House Correspondents' Dinner”:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Maureen Dowd said I could solve all my
problems if I were just more like Michael Douglas in The American President. And
I know Michael is here tonight. Michael,
what’s your secret, man? Could it be you
were an actor in an Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy?
So, “Bam!” and “Bam!” back at’cha!
In this context – and I could actually have started here, but I could not resist including
that joke, not ‘cause it shot down
Maureen Dowd, but because it’s a spectacular joke in all respects – not long
ago, in a recent New York Times column,
Maureen Dowd took a position favoring “snarkiness” – including imaginably her
own – not by defending “snarkiness”
itself, but by attacking its opposite – “smarminess”
– which, according to her column, refers to being unnecessarily effusive, and –
since “nobody can be that nice” – insincerely complimentary.
Dowd’s column drew attention to an ongoing literary tussle
between the prevailing ethos of “snark”, which writer Heidi Julavits deplored
as “a reflexive disorder”, and those on the other
end of the critical spectrum who believe that “If you can’t say something nice,
don’t say anything at all.”
To exemplify the latter
position, Maureen Dowd offered the example of writer and magazine founder Dave
Eggers who, in an interview in the Harvard
Advocate, confessed that being a critic, as he had once been, “came from a
smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and
envy.” Eggers went on to urge his
student audience:
“Do you dismiss a book until you have written one, and do
not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until
you have met them.”
In rebuttal to what she characterized as the “vapid niceness
brigade”, Maureen Dowd offered an essay in Gawker
(I do not know what that is) by Tom Scocca, taking the position that, given the
two alternatives, “snark” is better than “smarm.”
To which I reply,
“Hey, Tom (and Maureen Dowd, by association), those aren’t
the only alternatives.”
(And, by the way, they have nothing to do with how
passionately you feel, or how under attack your beliefs, at the moment, are.
“Snark” and “smarm” are simply the condiments of self-expression. They are not about “what” – meaning what you believe; they are only about “how”, meaning how you communicate what you believe.
To me – though apparently less so to others – the “how”
matters. A lot. It is not only
about, as Maureen Dowd argues in her final paragraph, the “actual privilege
to take a side {in an important quarrel}.”
It is also about the way you
do it. It seems to me that, in her
column, Maureen Dowd mistakenly mixed those two important issues together.)
A column delineating the argument of “Which is the better
extreme?” excludes, without consideration, the array of defensible positions between the two poles. I am entirely aware – and painfully so, since
it contributed mightily to the ending of my career – that “Extremes sell!” –
and that columns about extremes attract
attention – and sometimes even “counter-column” responses – but, to me, it
feels creepy, scary, uncomfortable and sad that, in a conversation about
criticism, the argument is restricted to two far-flung – and highly
questionable – alternatives.
The question for me is not, “Is ‘snark’ superior to ‘smarm’,
or vice versa”?
The question is:
“Have we, while conscientiously standing up for what we
believe, abandoned the possibility of anything else?”
3 comments:
Well, I agree that we should always challenge our beliefs and opinions, but I see none of that happening in the Democratic or Republican party. Nor do I see it in the two cable networks that represent their views, MSNBC and Fox.
Snarkiness is king.
The joke you so admire that the President told about Maureen Dowd, frankly seems like overkill on his part, and a reaction to criticism that is not that healthy. You're the President. Do what you think is right, no matter who cares.
I have found the Obama Presidency operating usually as a reaction to critical voices (from both sides), with a large degree of PR, and very little real direction.
As you know from creating TV shows, they succeed when the main character has a strong point of view.
I'll give you an 'amen' for moderation, Earl. In spite of the better press the extremes get (and most of the stories and movies), it's the moderates who get things done.
And Marty even won four Academy Awards. So, moderates can do well in the movies. Once in a while.
It was the White House Correspondents Dinner, and the Pres. did exactly what he and other Presidents have done since this event began. He was at times, very good; and at times, well, he needed better writers. It's available on YouTube, all 23:15 seconds. His shot at Dowd was well earned.
Overall, on the snark v. smarm issue - we're still wallowing in the Shock-Jock Syndrome, and as long as it's the Shock that gets the most attention, we'll continue to wallow.
Now let's all get over to the Palm rest. and beat the shit out of that clown who was so rude to you!
Post a Comment