The New York Review of Ideas » Q&A | June 2009

The Outsider

Michael Musto on snark.

By Nicholas DeRenzo

When David Denby released his book Snark earlier this year, he was met with groans and eye rolls from the blogosphere that he criticized. Many bristled at the critic’s suggestion that a glib, sarcastic approach is somehow damaging to the cultural conversation. You might assume that Michael Musto, The Village Voice’s gossip columnist for the past twenty-five years, would follow this trend of attacking the attacker. Ironically, “The Hunter S. Thompson of Snark” (The Toronto Star) remains surprisingly thoughtful and even a bit sentimental in his assessment of the world of snark.

Michael Musto.

You got your start writing movie reviews as a child and then theater criticism for The Columbia Spectator in college. What prompted your interest in this form of writing at such a young age?

I was an only child. I still am. I didn’t even have imaginary friends. As a result, I found that the best way to spend my time was to go to the local Cineplex or the theater. I was keeping it all for myself. That’s how I developed my snarky voice. I rolled my eyes at everything. I didn’t trust anyone. It was a healthy attitude to have as an outsider.

So was that tone something you worked on, or was it just an extension of your natural voice?

I didn’t work on it as a shtick. It just came as a defense mechanism for being an outsider. And it stuck for life.

Who were you reading at the time?

I was reading Truman Capote, Tom Wolfe, a lot of what was called the New Journalism. Breathless, first person narratives.

Speaking of New Journalism, The Toronto Star once called you “the Hunter S. Thompson of Snark.” What does a title like that mean to you?

I thought it was redundant being called the Hunter S. Thompson of Snark! It’s like being called the Paris Hilton of Socialites. But I was honored to have been put in the same sentence as Hunter S. Thompson. Now I sound like one of those Oscar nominees! But he has been the basis of so many bad movies.

You’re widely considered one of the best practitioners of snark, but how do you go about defining the term? Does it actually mean anything?

I think I have a different form of snark. I’m not afraid to show that deep down I’m a fan. I’m not out to throw mud at everyone. It becomes tiresome to be snarky all the time. You look like the outsider trying to bring down celebrities. If you don’t temper that with positivity, then it becomes a parade of meanness. Some websites do snark on full throttle. Then you just come across as a bully in the corner making fun of the football team and the cheerleaders.

Do you have an unwritten code of snark ethics? Are some people off limits? Who is open to your criticism?

Anybody who does something stupid could potentially be my victim. Celebrities live under a giant microscope. I always say that if we were looked at as closely as celebrities are, we would all be considered giant fuck-ups.

So what are your favorite targets?

Hypocrisy is my favorite target. I hate when people carry on about love and peace when they are leading this closeted lifestyle. A famous person coming out could help so many people. Celebrities always say they don’t want to talk about their private lives, but they’ll talk about everything else but their homosexuality. They pimp their kids, they talk about their alcoholism. They’ll talk about everything else.

Snark has been under attack recently because of the publication of David Denby’s book on snark. Have you read it?

I have read about it, and I totally understand where he is coming from. Having a bratty point of view nonstop is not constructive. It is not constructive for bloggers to constantly be attacking people bigger than them. But I do think snark can be extremely valuable. From the beginning of civilization, there have been snarky gay people responding to their oppression, snapping their fingers at oppressors.

Blogs in particular have been considered the main forum for snark. Do you approach your print column any differently than your blog?

I generally have the same tone in my columns and in my blog posts. In the columns, I do more interviews. I don’t interview someone like Craig Bierko unless I like them. I wouldn’t want to waste their time for ninety minutes and then smear them in my column. The blog is a forum for my current frustrations. The country is plummeting into a giant toilet bowl.

You blogged recently about how you think Tyler Perry should come out of the closet. How do people respond to blogs or columns like this one?

I recently wrote a blog about Barry Manilow. I had no idea there were so many middle-aged women who still cling to the idea that he is straight. These are the same people who thought Clay Aiken was straight for so long.

Are there any celebrities you spare?

Nobody’s spared my venom, but I do like to champion celebrities. Even Paris Hilton. I wrote something saying that we need her. She’s the Mickey Mouse of the new Depression. She can help us get through it. I thought Lindsay Lohan was a good actress, and I liked Britney Spears.

I have seen you interviewed many times on television, and you come across as a charming person. Do you think critics like David Denby too often conflate a sarcastic style of humor with a mean personality?

People often ask me what the most shocking thing about me is, and I say it’s that I’m actually a nice person. People think that I’m exactly like how I sound in my columns. That’s like saying that Anthony Hopkins must be a serial killer. The tone is definitely me, it’s not affected. But I’m responsible. I’m a good friend, I’m loyal. I sound like a dog now. I’m basically that nice kid from Brooklyn, just old now.

What are your thoughts on the future of snarky media?

I’m pro-snark, so I’m okay with it. I think that’s the direction we’re going in. It’s always been a wonderful tone. In the 80s, there was a magazine called Spy. It was like the predecessor to Gawker, but it was done with a lot of wit. I was definitely victimized by them, but it was a refreshing burst of fresh air. It was coming out at the same time that Vanity Fair was running puff pieces about celebrities.

Liz Smith was recently dropped from The New York Post. What do you make of such a move?

Liz was very supportive of me from the start. Her dismissal is representative of the rise of snark. She refused to deal in snark. She loved celebrities, and she actually hated gossip. Her good gal position I guess couldn’t work in this new environment. The blogs allow anyone to be a gossip columnist. The tendency for anyone is to be snarky when you write about celebrities, to take out aggressions and frustrations on them. People are not usually super-sweet to celebrities. That’s a thing of the past.