David Denby's new book, Snark, takes aim at the sneering tone he claims is ruining today's cultural discourse. (Simon & Schuster)

No one likes a scold. But if the reaction to David Denby’s book Snark: It’s Mean, It’s Personal and It’s Ruining Our Conversation is any indication, then even fewer appreciate the offerings of a skilled critic when he applies himself to the subject of literary manners.

Snark has been around forever and has been practised with a high degree of skill by many writers. The problem is there’s too much of it now, says New Yorker critic David Denby.

Snark is a “strain of nasty, knowing abuse,” writes Denby, a long-time film critic for the New Yorker. It’s the “bad kind” of invective that is “spreading like pinkeye through the national conversation.”

As a writing style, snark isn’t a problem. It’s been around forever and has been practised with a high degree of skill by many writers. (Gore Vidal, you old devil, Denby’s talking about you.) The problem is that there’s too much of it around at the moment, says Denby, and it’s sneaking into mainstream journalism. “It turns out that in the wake of the internet revolution, snark as a style has outgrown its original limited function. The internet has allowed it to metastasize as a pop writing form,” concludes the author. Putdowns, takedowns and rants have become the lingua franca of the internet.

Denby’s short book — it’s a quick read at a little over 120 pages — has dropped into the shark tank of book reviewing like a bucket of chum. Denby has been called out on charges of personal and political bias, elitism, spotty snark scholarship and inadequate definition of the term. When he’s not being ridiculed as a prig — barely concealing his contempt, New York Times book reviewer Walter Kirn called Denby a “neo-Victorian” — he’s characterized as a crank, a grumpy old man leaning over the back fence and complaining about the price of fancy coffees and gasoline. One blogger has even taken the time to create an alternative cover and retitle Denby’s book Kids: They’re Rude, They’re Disrespectful and They Won’t Stay Off My Lawn. It’s a funny idea but one that does a disservice to the conversation that Denby has initiated.

Snark is Denby’s inquiry into the current state of the journalistic soul, so to speak. Consequently, he brings more than esthetic criteria to bear on his analysis; he also talks about ethics. What does snark reveal about the author? When does style become malice?

(Simon & Schuster)

It’s questions like these that make writers and reviewers angry, bored or uncomfortable (or all three). But they are also questions that most writers ask of themselves privately. One of Denby’s targets is the trash-talking media site Gawker. Sticking it to celebs, minor internet sensations and any poor soul who’s hit the Associated Press entertainment wires that day is Gawker’s beat. It’s a cultural mash-up where snide thoughts about Gwyneth Paltrow's newsletter, GOOP, share space with “blind item” gossip and links to the latest YouTube video. For Denby, the site’s short, pointed posts reveal a cynical view of life: everyone’s a jerk or a hack or a pervert in Gawker’s world. More disturbing to Denby is that when Gawker’s writers migrate to more legitimate journalistic concerns, they take that perspective and tone with them.

Denby also takes Washington political columnist Maureen Dowd to task, concluding that time spent crafting her vibrant descriptions of politicians — her mocking of Al Gore really bugs Denby — would be better spent writing about issues. “She assumes that everyone in politics is out for himself; that principles or beliefs in a politician are a set of self-flattering delusions.… But does she know anything else about politics?” asks Denby.

Criticism of Denby’s work isn’t unwarranted. Perhaps aware of the first-draft feel of his argument, he has admitted the book was “written in a sweat.” It’s the critical reaction to his work that seems a bit over-the-top, however. The out-of-hand rejection of his ideas gives some weight to the book’s thesis that reactionary writing has overwhelmed the cultural conversation.

I don’t agree with all of his examples. Arguably what he’s calling Maureen Dowd out for is what she knows about politics. She doesn’t need to be force-fed subject matter, and I think it’s unfair to ask her to be the kind of columnist Denby wants to read.

Denby points out some cultural figures who he feels use their wit virtuously. He singles out Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as politically purposeful jokers. “Even when pecking at a victim’s tender spots, they also manage to defend civic virtue four times a week. When Stephen Colbert, a Liberal, wraps himself in the flag and bullies his guests in the manner of right-wing TV host Bill O’Reilly, he is practising irony, the most powerful of satiric weapons.”

New Yorker film critic and author David Denby. (Casey Kelbaugh/Simon & Schuster)

Colbert’s political courage is proven (see his White House Press Correspondent’s Dinner speech in 2006 if you need video evidence). I’ve never seen a comedian mock a sitting U.S. president from two feet away as Colbert did that evening. But I’m not as enamoured of Stewart. Unlike Colbert, who actually engages with policy, Stewart to me often seems bored by political discussions that go a beat past the punchline.

What Denby doesn’t say is that snark is ultimately a matter of taste. And as someone who has pressed "send" on a number of dubious observations myself, the question of whether to snark or not to snark may also be a matter of maturity, experience and opportunity. It’s clear Denby hasn’t had to look for a job in a while.

Differences aside, no one seems to acknowledge that the rising tide of snark — the demand for it — is more than a topic for a book. It’s an urgent concern for many writers, even readers. Kirn can write Denby off as a neo-Victorian, but the idea that art should both delight and instruct goes back much further. Denby’s not advocating censorship. He’s analyzing a phenomenon of style and asking a reasonable question: what kind of “journalistic culture” do we want?

In the current climate, I dare you to answer it.

Snark: It’s Mean, It’s Personal and It’s Ruining Our Conversation is in bookstores now.

Flannery Dean is a writer based in Toronto.