This interview is rife with writing and thinking errors. To avoid writing and speaking like this pretentious stuffed shirt here are a few suggestions:
1. Avoid creating "all purpose" words. FoxNews is famous for stretching, degrading and watering-down the words "liberal", "secular" and "progressive" until they have lost all of their former meanings and have become insults. Here the critic is using "snarky" to mean reveling in past indiscretions, making crude, hate-filled remarks without any basis in fact or cheap insults at someone else's expense. If you don't know what you're talking about, how will your reader?
2. Avoid name calling. If you have an argument that is well supported you don't have to resort to childish names and putdowns. Here the author calls Bill O???Reilly a "blowhard." It does nothing to support his claims, further his ideas or make him look good. It is just silly and tawdry.
3. Avoid foreign words. The word bourgeoisie must be avoided at all costs as it will peg the user as a pretentious, effete snob. It is unpardonable for an American to use this word as its use shows a shocking unfamiliarity with European literature and the word lacks meaning or context in the United States.
- 1
- 2
No Laughing Matter
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Certainly not Maureen Dowd, though. You devote the entirety of chapter 6 to tearing her—and her Obama remarks—down. Have you heard back yet?
The book just came out, but people don't answer attacks. But listen, I think she's brilliant ... but irresponsible. She casually destroyed Al Gore eight years ago. Things have gotten more serious, and I think she knows that, but as long as she's funny, she thinks it's OK that she repeats or contradicts herself. She's so eager to criticize that she actually misreads people.
Meanwhile, you support Keith Olbermann, saying that his show isn't snarky, just satirical. What's the difference?
Olbermann is a passionate liberal and extremely well-informed. There are certainly some snarky elements to his show. The ["Worst Person in the World"] segment has got to go: we all understand that Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing blowhard that can't get anything right. But Olbermann is very logical and engaged. That's the antidote to snark.
Speaking of that, how did you keep snark out of your own book?
I'm not sure I did. I've had practice, though, because it's pretty damn hard to get it into The New Yorker. God knows I've tried.
High standards, eh? Do you think it's the same for other publications?
No. There's going to be a lot of it going forward. As publications clamor to be noticed, that will be one way you're going to be noticed. By coming up with the smartest, nastiest cracks. On the Internet, we need moderators. When conversational threads collapse into racism, misogyny and Holocaust denial, that ruins the conversation for those people that are in it.
So do you hope your book will eliminate this behavior?
It would be arrogant to say that. Suddenly, there's an enormous explosion of exuberance, wildness and pent-up energy. And I don't think we should have a total snark-free zone. It would be a little dull. But the country is in terrible shape. So if we're not going to be terribly witty, which is hard, then we should at least talk sense to each other.
© 2009
- 1
- 2
Discuss