Some wines are aged in oak while others never see a touch of it. Some people complain about too much oak in certain wines, yet others enjoy those same wines. Some complain that overly oaked wines get all of the attention while more subtle wines get neglected.
Is snark the "oak" of wine blogging?
Snark is variously defined, though generally consists of sarcastic, smart-ass, and biting humor used to verbally attack someone or something. It is a common element on numerous blogs, including some wine blogs.
So, like oak, some wine blogs have snark while others do not. And some people complain about too much snark in certain wine blogs, yet others enjoy those same wine blogs. Some complain that overly snarky wine blogs get all of the attention while more subtle wine blogs get neglected.
It is my opinion that snark does get over used by some bloggers, and that overly snarky blogs detract from the pleasures of snark-free blogs. Snark gets lots of attention, yet can add little, if anything, to an actual discussion. The same discussion could easily occur without the snark, but it might not warrant sufficient attention. Snark is more a form of entertainment rather than adding anything useful to a debate.
In print media, you are most likely to see snark in the editorials. And sometimes I think they overdo it as well. But they are doing it to get attention, to make a big noise that will attract readers. How is that different from producing overly oaked wines to draw attention?
If you are snarky on your wine blog, why? Is it just to draw attention to your blog? How snarky is your blog? Is it like an over-oaked wine, dripping in excess snark? What do you see as the benefits of being snarky? Do non-snarky blogs get sufficient attention, or do they get lost within a large field of snark?