Hello and welcome, all! This is the pilot issue (or first issue, or prologue, or so on) to my weekly series, History With Snark. Like all pilot episodes, this will contain little humor and merely attempt to sell to you the idea of watching a series that is actually very different from what you just saw, by breaking all accepted television (or writing) traditions and conventions. With no further ado, let us begin.
The title says it all. History will be explored through a harsh, laconic, and often darkly humorous lens that tends to portray the past with an overwhelming degree of snark.
I know that at least one reader will ask just was this “snark” is. It certainly did not exist in the English language in 1995. Here, I defer to the illegitimate child of Oxford and Merriam-Webster, the Urban Dictionary, which states that snark is a:
Combination of “snide” and “remark”. Sarcastic comment(s).
Well, that was not so hard, was it? Simple contractions. Perhaps I ought to spell it “sn’ark.”
With that question out of the way, I can already anticipate your next: “What can I expect from this clearly derisive series that intends to do away with any amount of respect that history ought to receive?” Well, dear reader who likely never asked that, I am glad you asked! In this series, we (or I) will laugh at the folly of the Trojans, make light of the losses at Agincourt, and question just how the world did not arrive at electricity sooner. I will attempt to humor you by mocking Panzer designs, and probably get myself banned from writing another issue after I complain about the ineffectiveness of Hitler’s strategy and propose better solutions to the European Front (you didn’t actually think I was going to propose solutions to the other question, did you?).
(To break more academic conventions,) I would like to say in closing, thank you for reading this much. Next week will promise a glance at the First World War through the ever-fogged lens, for history is never objective and my glasses need cleaning. Tschüss!