Another way to think of it: even though we all know people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are preaching to the choir, we could imagine a very open-minded person being persuaded by them on some issue (say, that John McCain or Barack Obama completely contradicted an earlier position); satire has the ability to be persuasive. But Dowd’s columns are obviously, unapologetically unpersuasive. She starts with a premise — usually, something along the lines of “George Bush is a stupid idiot” — and makes awful jokes based on that premise. Satire makes a point; snark is just name-calling.

Almost everything you’ve said here about Television Without Pity is wrong, which suggests an unfamiliarity with the site — and might explain why you misunderstand the point its inclusion is intended to make in the original piece.

You write that my article “never cites a single example from the website in which its writers wrote something along the lines of, ‘That episode of Lost was fantastic’ etc.” That’s my error, then, because the site is full of that sort of thing. So is the entire, supposedly snark-addled Internet. That’s the point. Many of the snarkiest commentators out there are, in their hearts, true and passionate fans: committed, demanding, opinionated.

So Denby’s familiar caricature of snarkers as people who can’t summon a passion for anything is wrong, and demonstrably wrong. You’ve caricatured the TWoP community here similarly, and that’s wrong as well. A sentence such as, “You can read a website like Television Without Pity and realize that the people who write for it are wasting their talents drinking in nothing but the poisonous tonic of sarcasm,” becomes ironic once you realize that several writers from TWoP have been hired by the very producers of the shows they’ve critiqued. No one who doesn’t care about something spends hours watching it, critiquing it and, yes, snarking on it.

As for the site’s founders, after shepherding the move to Bravo Online, they all subsequently left the site. I’ve never been a fan of the rhetorical technique you employ here, by which people are labeled sell-outs, then dismissed. However, by your logic, you — and Denby — should be praising the Internet, not burying it—-precisely because it offers a voice to people who haven’t yet been absorbed into whatever mainstream Borg-organism you assume everyone’s so eager to join.

It’s true that snark has become the de facto voice of some corners of the Web. The more interesting question is: Why? For Denby, this question seems no more interesting than “Why are those teenagers on the bus so damned noisy?” He doesn’t care why — he just wants them to pipe down.

And, yes, Denby praises certain forms of irony, vituperation, sarcasm, etc. But he never draws a convincing distinction between what he likes (Colbert, Gore Vidal) and what he doesn’t (Maureen Dowd, faceless masses on Twitter). Whatever your opinion of Dowd and Keith Olbermann, can you honestly suggest that what they do is essentially different? Yet Denby lashes one and praises the other. Similarly, Jon Stewart is funny, and ruthless, and funny because he is ruthless. I hate to say it, but that’s snark. You can’t simply not include him because you think he’s funny and you agree with his politics.

The core problem is that, in defending Denby, you repeat his circular reasoning. He defines snark as anything that’s abusive and dismissive, then condemns snark for being abusive and dismissive. Yes, there is a lot of snark out there that’s mindlessly abusive, but that’s not an argument against snark, it’s an argument against abuse. Take Jon Stewart, again, who can be both snarky and a champion of a “corresponding set of virtues.” So too can a lot of anonymous people on the Internet. They don’t have trouble seeing snark as a vehicle for expressing legitimate outrage. Denby, on the other hand, argues that snark that expresses legitimate outrage isn’t snark, it’s… something else. He ignores the fact that snark, like sarcasm, like vitriol, like satire, can be properly and expertly applied.

It’s like the gold-star student in class dutifully copying the blackboard! (The idea that Choire’s five articles in a month, at today’s rates, can take even baby steps toward quantifying a living in New York City is also cute).

Anyway, yeah, I didn’t even know about this book, and now I wanna read it too.

Arianna Huffington (December 21, 2008)
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-ca-conversation21-2008dec21,1,7613827.story

Bijou Phillips (December 14, 2008)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-conversation14-2008dec14,0,2901004.story

Salon article (December 10, 2008)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/12/10/mamet/

Jamie Bamber (December 7, 2008)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-conversation7-2008dec07,0,2005404.story

Play the sad song and dance routine all you want, Choire. (And I’m still waiting for Tribune checks too. Goddam bankruptcy.) But the above clips indicate to me that you’re still doing just fine. You’re certainly making more money than me this month as a freelancer, and I certainly ain’t complaining. But then perhaps you’re long past knowing precisely where the “gates” are. (Oh, and Denby isn’t kind to you at all in the new book. And he’s right. But I guess you’ll have to wait until you can grab a copy.)

Let the email record show that I DID warn you about your Rex Reed impersonations. Let the email record also show that you published a private email I sent you.

Funny how snark is altogether different when you’re on the other side of the fence, and you’re a freelancer struggling to pay the rent just like the rest of us.

One thing: the small and bizarre mention of me here (I was just innocently sitting at home eating tacos and reading the internet!) is unfortunately incorrect. I have been unemployed for some months and am not inside the “gates” of any particular entity or group. However I will definitely be sleeping on the ground *near* these alleged gates in about three months if I don’t start making some cash money soon.