The terms "Mark" and "Smark" Need to be Retired

[The Doctor]

I've been thinking about this for a while, since before the Summer. I've been meaning to make this thread for a long time, but never did. And now, I'm going to.

Ever since becoming a wrestling fan and familiarizing myself with the terminology, I've noticed something. Originally, the term "Mark" meant someone who believed wrestling was real, and the term "Smark" was a portmanteau of the phrase "Smart Mark" which referred to someone who knew it was staged. These were the ways I used them, and never thought anything of it.

However, as time went by, I realized that people nowadays used the terms in completely different ways. Let's start with "Mark".

Mark is used in two ways that I've seen:

1. To Express Mockery Against Someone You Don't Like
Indeed, this is the most common way I have seen people use it these days.
"You're a mark" "Stop being a total mark" "Stupid WWE mark"
From what I can gather, it's used by the self-proclaimed "smarks" to look down on and insult those they deem less than them. This isn't all that different from the original usage of the word, as it was originally used by pickpockets and carnies to denote someone easy to swindle, but it's far away enough from the textbook definition.

2. To Refer To Someone Who Enjoys the Product Despite Its Flaws
This has become a self-referential term, possibly as a backlash against "smarks" who used definition 1. People call themselves "WWE Marks" or "TNA Marks" or "Kofi Kingston Marks" to say that they highly enjoy that show or wrestler. It's pretty much the same as "Fanatic", without the negative connotations. For example, calling myself a "Hurricane mark" means that I'm a huge fan of The Hurricane, but calling myself a "Hurricane fanatic" implies obsession, and creepy ICP fans.

The term "smark" has evolved even more. No longer does it only mean someone who knows the product is staged. Now, it has an updated definition.

Someone Who Knows the Product is Staged, and Looks at it Analytically Rather Than As A Fan
In a way, this is close to the term "Shareholders" that is being popularized by our very own Lord Sidious. Originally, it meant someone who was in on the business. Nowadays it means someone who knows wrestling is staged and likes to look at it analytically rather than as a sport. This definition describes everyone here in one way or the other, as we all enjoy watching and ranting/discussing/debating pro wrestling. We all have our likes and dislikes, and our ways of improving the product. We think we know what is good and bad for business, and rather than looking at particular wrestlers we like and dislike (though that factors into our decisions), we look at what is good and bad for business, and ways we can get it to change to our liking.

A lesser known definition of smark is Someone Who Is Bitter, Angry, and Negative Toward the Product. This definition is mostly used by self-proclaimed "marks", usually in retaliation towards someone attacking the product they are "marks" for.

If you think about it, the current usages of the terms "smark" and "mark" are very similar, with key differences. Smark cares about both the product and the business, while knowing it is staged. Marks blindly love their product.

Now, my question to you is: Should these terms be retired?

I believe they should indeed, and I have my reasons why.

First off, both terms have evolved far past their original meanings. Both had originally very simple, clear meanings, that made labeling easy. Now, they've both become convoluted and almost meaningless by people using them in ways they weren't originally meant to be used. People throw them around willy-nilly, cheapening their value and making them less and less descriptive. Such is the nature of language.

Second, both terms are used as derogatory terms rather than descriptive terms in some cases. Someone who has a differing opinion in the wrong company is contemptuously labeled a "smark", while someone in different company who expresses enjoyment is looked down upon as a "mark". These leads to confusion and hatred, and that's no good.

I have to ask: Why are either of these terms considered bad? They are just different ways of enjoying the same product.
Think about it: How much did you enjoy wrestling when you thought it was real? I bet you were more emotionally invested in it, right? Don't deprive people of that.
On the flip side, I personally find it VERY fun to log onto a forum and discuss the business and what I think would be interesting to see. It's not being overly negative, it's giving suggestions on how to improve a product.

These are the reasons I think the terms should be retired, or at least used by their original meanings. It's confusing, the terms have become overused and generally meaningless, and they are being used more and more negatively when neither should be negative at all.

Here are my questions for everyone:
- Should the terms "Mark" and "Smark" be retired? Why or why not?
- What do those terms mean nowadays, anyway? How have you seen them used?
- If they were to be retired, what should we replace them with?
- Are terms really that important?

 

[Dagger Dias]

Here are my questions for everyone:
- Should the terms "Mark" and "Smark" be retired? Why or why not?
- What do those terms mean nowadays, anyway? How have you seen them used?
- If they were to be retired, what should we replace them with?
- Are terms really that important?

I don't think it's really a matter of whether they should retire those terms or not, but more of that it is just terminology that will most likely be replaced once people find something better to call "mega fans" or "analytical fans".... I mean, didn't "mark" and "smark" respectively replace two older words?

Nowadays they seem to mean different things than that they originally did. If you're a fanboy/fangirl of wrestling, then you're automatically a mark and/or a smark at the same time.... it seems that many marks and smarks do not like each other. The marks just want to enjoy the product, and the smarks want to read as far between the lines as they can.

I'm not entirely sure what they should be replaced with if they get replaced. I'd say something that means "a fan of being entertained" for the marks, and something that means "someone who enjoys dissecting every last detail of something" for the smarks. There really is no way of telling what the terms should be replaced with, but eventually it will happen because jargon changes all the time.

Finally.... no, I don't think the terms are that important because they are little more than just words that fans can call other fans, really. Interesting idea for a thread, though.

 

[Gelgarin]

I wasn't going to respond, but then I figured that the act of doing so might be amusing.

Should the terms "Mark" and "Smark" be retired? Why or why not?

I'm unsure if this is actually intended as a serious question. You phrase it like it is, but since 'retiring a word' is essentially impossible, I'm assuming we're talking about some idealised hypothetical universe (possibly with bunny rabbits).

Anyway, no they shouldn't be retired. Reason... they're fucking words. Around these parts you have a collection of people who spend a great deal of time discussing wrestling, and both mark and smark and valuable additions to our vocabulary. Take the words away and you'll just find people resorting to typing the phrases "the internet wrestling community" and... well... we don't have much of a synonym for mark yet, but I'm sure we'd cook one up.
Now I like needlessly extending my posts, but most people don't, and taking away perfectly functional sections of our posting vocabulary is going to achieve nothing but forcing us to do just that.

What do those terms mean nowadays, anyway? How have you seen them used?

I've seen them used in a number of ways, both positive and negative.
Personally I think that mark is simply a term for somebody who marks for something (EG: IC25 is a total Gelgarin mark) but it can be used as criticism for idiots who can't get a handle on the whole "not real" aspect of professional wrestling, as a put down for people possessing irrational jingoistic support of a particular company/wrestler, or as a badge of honour by douch-bags who want to consider themselves a purer kind of life form becasue they posses the power to "suspend their disbelief" and pretend that Randy Orton is really attempting to murder John Cena with pyrotechnics in front of 200,000 people watching on PPV.

Smark can be anything from one who watching wrestling in an analytical manner, to somebody who thinks that wrestling ability directly correlates to how many flips you can inject into a single vertical suplex. Personally, I line up with the original definition because it makes sense (smart-mark is a rather silly term to describe idiots with) but this is irrelevant.

Your correct in your surmise that the meanings of both terms have become blurred over the years, but answer me this.

Has there ever been an occasion where confusion is legitimately brought about by the use of these phrases?

If I tell NSL that he's a TNA mark he'll recognise the context and take it as a compliment. Similarly, if I rant on to Xfear about how the ECW audience were nothing but a collection of intolerable smarks he'll likely recognise that I'm not being complimentary and get defensive (as ECW fans are prone to do for some bizarre reason). Words usually take their meaning from their context, and mark and smark are no different.

The only problem comes from people taking one using to be an absolute definition, then crusading around the place going on and on about it.

If they were to be retired, what should we replace them with?

So wait... why in gods name would we retire a pair of perfectly functional words, then replace them with new terms to represent the same meanings. Logic appears to be fast escaping this idealised alternate universe.

I guess technically we could use phrases like 'Member of the internet wresting community'... but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does is?
How about 'person still under the impression that wrestling is real'? Same problem I guess.

I suppose I have one novel idea... how about using the terms mark and smark. There handy, quick to type, and have the added benefit of everyone already knowing what they mean. Win win win as far as I'm concerned.

Are terms really that important?

No. Absolutely not. As I said near the beginning, there fucking words. Words don't have any power by themselves. Statements have power. Posts have power. All words do is help you construct them.

Referring to Smarks as the IWC, Christmas and Winterval and a blackboard as a chalkboard accomplished nothing. 98% of people are quite capable of taking words in the correct context and communicating in a normal manner, and anybody who legitimately can't shouldn't be allowed on the internet in the first place.

So no. It would be utterly impossible to 'retire' the words in the first place, and even if we could, I can see absolutely no benefit to anybody.

What's next?

 

[Tenta]

It's a very interesting theory, Doc. I, too, have issues with the term mark, only because it's used typically in such a negative position. I don't understand what's so wrong about being a fan, I really don't. Aren't we supposed to be fans of the shows we watch? Another thing I don't like is that the term "mark" typically insinuates that the fan likes everything about a show. Not true at all. Before my schism from the WWE, I didn't like segments, but I considered myself a mark, and enjoyed the show.

I think what's forgetten over time is that marks, too, can have a critical eye. Marks are allowed to find things in the program they don't enjoy. It doesn't make them any less of a fan, it just makes them what should be true... It makes them realistic fans. I have no problem referring to myself as a mark, and hopedgully, other's don't, as well.

At the end of the day, it's simple... Mark, the word itself, doesn't need to be banned from our lexicon. However, it needs to be altered. No longer should mark be a swear word to the IWC. Embrace yourself as a fan, and know that, indeed, being a mark is ok.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I actually post a on a wrestling forum where they have a ''Smarks'' section. It even says ''Marks keep out, you're not smart enough to post here. Educated fans only''. Strangely it's populated by Bring Back The Attitude Era, Was Eddie Guerrero The Greatest Ever, Cena Sucks type threads.

I've told them time and time again that ''Smark'' means smart-mark, which none of them are. They then tell me to fuck off and call me a mark. They rewarded me with their Most Intelligent Member Of The Year award, see signature. I didn't make that baby myself you know.

I've never used to terms other than on this other forum. Mostly because I can't recall ever seeing somebody being called a mark. On this forum it's used regularly. My standard reply is that we're all marks, but you are some of the dumbest.

Apparently only marks can appreciate a couple of Cena matches, but you're a hater if you think HBK is past it.

 

[burnout4200]

I'm normally not a forum guy I just read alot of editorials so the whole mark/smark talk always confused me. They seem to be the most misused terms I've ever heard because everytime I see it used it contradicts other ways it gets used. I cant settle on one definition so I made up my own. To sum it up a mark is a closed minded wrestling fan that can only repeat what they've read or refuse to acknowledge the other side of the coin. A smark is a mark that thinks they're better than marks because they've watched every shoot interview 15 times and listen to Bubba The Love Sponge.

Using those definitions I also leave room for a grey area. I am a huge Sting mark. I don't care what you say bad about him, I'll turn my nose up at you quicker than shit and repeat myself. At the same time I am not a mark. Cena is annoying but I appreciate his skills and like what he brings to the table. I see both sides on almost every subject except for the very few things that I'm a mark towards.

I'm a huge TNA fan and I was a huge WCW fan, yet I don't refer to myself as a mark towards them. I'm a TNA/WCW Loyalist. I'm not afraid to admit their flaws. I'm just a fan despite their flaws and I still look at both sides. Maybe this is a small definition of a mark now but I coined it as Loyalist before I ever even heard the word. To me marks and smarks alike are extremely closed minded and their opinions are non negotiable. Smarks just do more research and roll their eyes at people who didn't read the same articles. Considering the open mindedness I wouldn't count a loyalist as a smark.

Just figured I'd throw in how an outsider defined the words to himself. I never asked for a definition and made up my own mind.

 

[The Doctor]

I wasn't going to respond, but then I figured that the act of doing so might be amusing.

Well I'm glad you decided to grace me with your presence, o exalted master debator.

You phrase it like it is, but since 'retiring a word' is essentially impossible,

Ah, a realist. Bo-ring.

I'm assuming we're talking about some idealised hypothetical universe

The same one that allowed Sting and Lou Thesz to face each other.

(possibly with bunny rabbits).

Penguins, actually.

Anyway, no they shouldn't be retired. Reason... they're fucking words.

Hey, what they do in their own time is none of my business.

Around these parts you have a collection of people who spend a great deal of time discussing wrestling, and both mark and smark and valuable additions to our vocabulary.

They're also misused and trite.

Take the words away and you'll just find people resorting to typing the phrases "the internet wrestling community" and... well... we don't have much of a synonym for mark yet, but I'm sure we'd cook one up.

And here you have made a mistake. Nowadays, "smark" does not only mean The IWC. It HAS no one true meaning anymore! It can be used to mean "I am better than you, you stupid 'mark'", or it can mean "Damn, that guy is so negative!". "Smark" doesn't mean "The IWC". It does not exclusively refer to The IWC as a whole. "The IWC" means the IWC.

Now I like needlessly extending my posts, but most people don't, and taking away perfectly functional sections of our posting vocabulary is going to achieve nothing but forcing us to do just that.

So you'd rather people say "lol ur a dumbass mark" rather than say "I disagree with your opinion; I find John cena's character bland and uninteresting"? Yeah. No.

I've seen them used in a number of ways, both positive and negative.

Exactly, when the original terms were neither positive nor negative (Well, except among carnies and pickpockets). They were merely descriptive. The meaning has become diluted.

Personally I think that mark is simply a term for somebody who marks for something

Once again, diluted meaning. A "mark" is someone who "marks" for something. When the definition has become recursive, it's time to say goodbye.

but it can be used as criticism for idiots

Subjective.

who can't get a handle on the whole "not real" aspect of professional wrestling,

So you'll deprive them of their way to enjoy the product, just gbecause yoou enjoy it in a different way?

as a put down for people possessing irrational jingoistic support of a particular company/wrestler,

And NOW you're saying they can't like who they want to like?!

or as a badge of honour by douch-bags who want to consider themselves a purer kind of life form becasue they posses the power to "suspend their disbelief" and pretend that Randy Orton is really attempting to murder John Cena with pyrotechnics in front of 200,000 people watching on PPV.

So, because they get caught up in the moment, they're douchebags. That's not very nice.
Unless, of course, you were talking about people who tell people who say anything negative about the product they're "smarks" and need to "gtfo". Then, I agree that they are douchebags.

Smark can be anything from one who watching wrestling in an analytical manner,

Indeed.

to somebody who thinks that wrestling ability directly correlates to how many flips you can inject into a single vertical suplex.

Amusing.

(smart-mark is a rather silly term to describe idiots with)

And yet...people nowadays do it all the time. The self-proclaimed marks/"douchebags" use it this way alllll the time. Well, they do it to people they find to be idiots. Kinda funny. It's almost like Smark no longer means Smart Mark, but rather is an all-purpose term. Interesting.

Has there ever been an occasion where confusion is legitimately brought about by the use of these phrases?

Yeah, back when I was learning the terms. Same with some other people who have posted in this thread.
Also, I was trying to explain to my friend what "marking out" meant, when I realized...I couldn't. What DOES it mean? Being so caught up in the moment you believe wrestling is real? Close, but no cigar. Getting really excited about what you're seeing? no, too mild. The best I could explain it is that "Marking out" means "Marking out". And as such, the words have meaning, while being meaningless. Almost like saying "He's in a better place" or "Plenty of other fish in the sea". Trite, overused, and garbled.

If I tell NSL that he's a TNA mark he'll recognise the context and take it as a compliment. Similarly, if I rant on to Xfear about how the ECW audience were nothing but a collection of intolerable smarks he'll likely recognise that I'm not being complimentary and get defensive

And so, we see that these terms have become nothing more than little words to pepper rants and posts with, while retaining none of their original meaning and being used to start a shit-throwing session. Hooray!

(as ECW fans are prone to do for some bizarre reason).

Loyalty. What can you do about it?

Words usually take their meaning from their context, and mark and smark are no different.

Yes, but even words have distinct definitions so that it's easy to explain what they mean. If you go by the textbook definition of "A mark is someone who believes wrestling is real" etc., then you have a lot of confused people. It's like how idioms don't translate into other languages.

The only problem comes from people taking one using to be an absolute definition, then crusading around the place going on and on about it.

And why shouldn't there be an absolute definition? It would make things much easier. "Defenestration" means "the act of throwing something out of a window". "Lies" means "falsehoods". Why can't "smark" mean "someone who knows it is staged"?

So wait... why in gods name would we retire a pair of perfectly functional words, then replace them with new terms to represent the same meanings.

Incorrect. I would want to replace them with multiple new words with more exact definitions, thus making understanding and discussion easier. We need more than just the blanket terms of "mark" and "smark", and more exact, meaningful words.

I guess technically we could use phrases like 'Member of the internet wresting community'... but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it?

But that isn't what "smark" means anymore!

How about 'person still under the impression that wrestling is real'? Same problem I guess.

And that isn't the current definition of "mark".

I suppose I have one novel idea...

Only one?

how about using the terms mark and smark. There handy,

Yes.

quick to type,

Yes...

and have the added benefit of everyone already knowing what they mean.

No.

No. Absolutely not.

And yet, as humans, it is our nature to label, and categorize. Wouldn't it be more precise and lead to better-crafted posts and statements if we had to be more descriptive, rather than slinging the term "mark" around at someone we disagree with?

As I said near the beginning, there fucking words.

So if they were celibate, you'd be more accepting?

Words don't have any power by themselves.

I completely disagree. If I were to say a certain negative slur for black people or gay people, I have no doubt I would be infracted right here, right now. In fact, I once said that term for gay people on this forum, in a joking context, and wasn't referring to anyone, and I still got infracted.
Around my school, people refer to gay people as that term all the time, and they aren't *really* being malicious. It's just the way they describe them, and I am still offended. Whether they mean to or not, that word brings up connotations of hatred, intolerance, and violence. My best friend is gay, and I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights, and that word offends me. It doesn't matter whether it's being used as a descriptive term or a slur, it's still offensive. And it's just the word by itself.

Statements have power. Posts have power. All words do is help you construct them.

And if the building blocks we use to construct our posts are soft and meaningless, then the whole post becomes meaningless. Trite sayings and phrases mean nothing.

Referring to Smarks as the IWC

Not what it means...

So no. It would be utterly impossible to 'retire' the words in the first place,

And Lou Thesz has never faced Sting.

What's next?

Goldberg.

 

[Super Crazy]

First off, where this is a visible line between people that are marks and people that are smarks, it is a very thin one. In fact I'll go as far as to say that everyone has a bit of a mark and smark in us. We all at one point or another, have believed the product to be real, and at some point, there have been moments that put us in such disbelief that it made us question everything. And then, all of at some point or another have given ideas as to what would be better for the company and or wrestling industry as a whole.

Now, whether or not to retire them? I don't think so. It would just be pointless to try and get fans everywhere to stop using the words, as someone , somewhere would still use it. Also, I believe these terms are quite fitting. They are more or less the slang of wrestling fans and nothing is going to change that.