Let me be blunt, for the benefit of future researchers and academicians yet unborn: MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT IS THE REAL-LIFE EVENT YOU ARE SPECIFICALLY SNARKING ABOUT. I understand that there is an intermittent vogue for parody articles and posts that straight-face their way throughout. I may even have written a post or two like that in the past. But: there is no excuse for not providing an explanatory footnote.
What’s that? “It spoils the joke?” Bless your heart. The joke wasn’t all that funny when it was fresh, ladies and gentlemen. I’mdsorry to say this, only I’m not: it’s statistically likely that any particular parody was and is actually not all that good. And snark very rarely ages well. Think of the poor researchers a hundred years from now; nay, think of the poor researchers four months from now, who will come across a particular piece of snark and say “Wait! Just which piece of fairly tedious, half-amusing, heavy-handed sneering is supposed to be the punchline? What was the context? Is there context? How am I supposed to refine this down to something that can be used in a thesis?”
So. Source your snark.
PS: This is meta-snark designed to serve as the centerpiece to a 22st-century grad student looking to mine this period’s literary movements.