Curatorialist

“Really?”

Back a number of years ago, I tried to put an end to the term, “Whatever.” At least in my little corner of the world. John Lennon said that “Apathy isn’t it.” And I believe that. Any person content to dismiss a situation with a single word seemed like part of the problem to me. And the term had an air of condescension to it, as though some kind of beachhead was gained for the person who cared least. I railed against it, chose not to associate with people who used it and let it infuriate me to no end. Eventually, either the word lost its spunk or people eventually realized that not caring put them, actually, in a place of disengagement that has little worth in most of life’s real endeavors. I suppose I just outlasted the “Whateverers.”

Enter “Really?” Not since “whatever” have I had this kind of visceral reaction against a word. For the most part, memes like “Really?” gain popularity because they make communicating a complex idea simpler. The NY Times has put the term to good use in their Science section, with a column by Anahad O’Connor called “Really?” where she tackles science questions, mostly pertaining to health. In that case it’s not sarcastic, so it sets up the column well. But when it does veer into the sarcastic, the message often gets lost. Take the article that ran in the LA Times Business section this morning, entitled: “GOP rides on the ‘Daisy ad’ storm. Really?” By adding that single word, we get it – the author is incredulous.

One would be hard-pressed to find a word that could convey his contempt for the previous statement as succinctly. That is the benefit, but it comes at the cost of adding extreme sarcasm, a tonality that is distracting and detrimental to a discussion. It was funny on Saturday Night Live, with their Weekend Update skit, “Really?!?” and some say the meme started there, but that show is a study in sarcasm. It gets away with a style of news broadcasting that more objective journalism is supposed to be above. That’s the point. But as the more responsible journalists start to emulate the styles of SNL, snark bloggery and Comedy Central, the line of legitimacy and critical thinking gets too hazy for me. I don’t want sarcasm in the LA Times, I want truth-telling and deep thinking. It doesn’t have to be emotionless, but it should be above sarcasm.

The same applies on a personal level. “Question Authority” was a common bumper sticker when I was a kid and I have always maintained that just saying something is so doesn’t make it so. It is our birthright to demand an explanation from any other person claiming to be an expert. When someone simply says, “Really?” it’s like having an opinion without having to really explain it. It’s assumptive. It’s a hypothetical question that actually means, “what an idiot.” That, to me, is not the basis for a fruitful discussion. The biggest abusers tend to want to use it at the end of every sentence, often multiple times in a row: Really? Really? Really? Or by combining it with other terms of incredulity: Really? Seriously? As if it gets funnier with the compounding. As if it was funny to begin with. Maybe I’m just in a dying class of people who prefer long-form talking and discussion, where people hash things out through the presentation of an opnion, backed up with examples, anecdotes and facts. If you REALLY want to discuss something, have a REAL opinion, and leave the sarcasm to the people who actually make it funny.

I guess I’ll just have to wait this one out, too.