Welcome to The Tuesday Alternative (with all the cult, late-Friday-night, young persons’ vibe that might suggest – apart from the fact of not being cult, late-night, on Friday or particularly designed for young persons).
The Tuesday Alternative is a hopefully humorous (and sometimes pontificating, obnoxious and ranting) look at everything Word, Blog and Book. It will alternate with Kirsty’s Russian series and Kirsty and I may even collaborate on the odd (and potentially mind-boggling) combo of comedy and Russian Revolution in future posts -something I think we can safely say you almost certainly won’t find anywhere else.
But today, to launch the series on everything Word, Blog and Book…I have decided to go for Blog. And talk about that key part of the online writer’s toolkit: the emoticon.
The emoticon tends to get a bit of a bad press. Like the exclamation mark, it tends to be looked down on. They are derided as crude and obvious, silly and tasteless and the sign of a lazy wordsmith. If you can’t get your point across about how to end Third World Poverty without the help of a grinning face in a comedy hat then – quite frankly – you can’t be much of a writer.
I have to admit to being a bit of a fan of the emoticon. I didn’t used to be. Like every other slightly self-conscious individual who has a fancy towards creative writing, when I first arrived on the internet scene I vowed I would never use them. It seemed like air-kissing, going “yay!” or calling people “darhling” – unnecessarily friendly, falsely cutesy, with that hint of desperate, doggy tail-wagging (”I’m harmless, I’m harmless, please don’t shout at me”), designed merely for those ingratiating individuals who wouldn’t or couldn’t rely on the iron-fist of cold rationality to support their arguments…
Within weeks, I was peppering every sentence with the grimacing gurning little things.
The internet is a weird and wonderful place, and without expressions and body language and tone of voice to signal intent, misunderstandings are all too easily made.
****Joke alert****Joke alert**** (((((((JOKE))))))) (it was a joke, honest. 
) No really. ***300winkies***(Definitely just a joke. Promise.)
may be a bit crude and obvious, but being crude and obvious is infinitely preferable to the possibility of an aggrieved cyber-acquaintance getting the wrong end of the stick and arriving round your house with a sawn-off shotgun.
It is in arguments that emoticons can be particularly useful. Building bridges; diffusing tension. Observe the following typical sort of encounter between two opera-loving buffs on a particularly vicious opera-loving forum:
PuciniRocks17: You ****** ****** ****** Wagner-loving *****!!!!
Wagnerbuff5: Interesting sentiments, PuciniRocks17. It’s a shame I cannot even compute the thoughts of someone tasteless enough to prefer Callas’s rather screeching and melodramatic performances over that of Birgit Nilsson.
Unpleasant, eh?
Now, compare with the following debate on the pros and cons of a meat-eating lifestyle over on a Vegan Lifestyle Forum:
MybodyisnotaCharnelHouse: You murdering animal-hating piece of dog turd. *Winkie*.
IlovetoDrinkBlood88: You f****** soya-eating piece of dairyfree scum. *Hula-hoop* and *Afro with side-burns*…
So much more civilised!
The insistence that someone else is a prize chump takes on a completely different nuances when accompanied by a emoticon in sunglasses, an emoticon wiggling its eyebrows or one wearing a paper hat. It is a whole new subtle language of its own. Will the emoticon find its way into the literature of the future (much of which, after all, may well be online)? What would the great writers of the past have made of them? Given the chance, would Austen have thrown in a few winkies; Edgar Allan Poe, shockies; Thomas Hardy – the occasional roll of the eyes (added by his editor)?
In the den we have a particularly impressive range and it can be interesting to observe how the different foxes gravitate towards different symbols. My favourites are a grinning green alien and a cyclops with an inflatable eye, whilst tough-talking knee-capping Moira accompanies every tough-talking knee-capping message with an albino rabbit. (What this says about the pair of us I’m not sure – that I identify with monstrous outsiders whilst underneath Moira’s knee-capping exterior lies a cute fluffy interior, perhaps? A whole essay could be written about this possible emoticon subtext.)
The den has emoticons for fear, for suspicion, and even for when we’re a little bit tipsy. Although, so far, none of us have found a satisfactory use for a cheerful-looking fellow sporting a full Egyptian headdress.
But one day…you’ll see…there will be nothing else to express whatever Egyptian headdressed comment we are trying to make (discussing the new Indiana Jones movie, maybe?). After which, we won’t understand how we ever managed to communicate without him.
[the sentiments expressed below are done so in the spirit of robust converstation, it features broad brushstrokes, stereotypes and a degree of caricature in relation to online discourse. any similarities with foxes, living or dead, is purely coincidental]
AAaaaaaaaaarrrrrgh! Rosyb you cur!
I loathe emoticons.
In a really irrational, breaking out in hives, wanting someone to crack my skull open to let my brain flee and run screaming down the street sort of way. There’s something deeply sinister about them and their use. The insistence on them being used to indicate happy thoughts creates a climate of suspicion around those of us who choose not to use them with situations where wry, cynical and jocose postings are interpreted as slights or slings and seem to require a wheedling retraction on my part because some super-sensitive soul seems to think that my dissenting opinion represents a slur on their character/taste/family.
In your two sample conversations I’ll warrant that both participants have come across one another before and it’s pretty easy to extrapolate the subtext in play in each one.
the jocose, friendly one (with or without winks etc.) is a retreading of tabloidist stereotypes about vegans/meateaters. the names are also a good clue that these are people comfortable with their stance and aren’t going to get riled by what some bozo says on the internet.
the angry conversation is a depressing example of what passes for online discourse this weather where two blank, uncharismatic walls of certainty come battering into each other. the result is invariably a draw in which there are no winners and only chipped paint and brickwork. these sporadic jousts occasionally ramp up in intensity as grudges are held, fed, exercised, given a really nice wash and blow dry and nurtured until they blow up into a massive, community-endangering spat in which everyone takes sides, drags up previous imagined slights and generally calls everyone every name under the sun.
the soap-opera stylings of some Guardian book blog regulars epitomises this approach and the lack of smilies has little to do with the unpleasant tone of festering resentment and self-aggrandisement and everything to do with people taking a deep breath and maybe going for a wee walk rather than spending 6 hours arguing about whether the new Cecilia Aherne is a nice comforting book or a threat to our entire way of life.
the recourse to emoticons inhibits or straitjackets good conversation by setting a non-verbal framework for it.
Now, you see, Clom, if you’d just added a winkie to that…
*gibber*
PS I did actually just make those conversations up.
What clom really, really needs is a cute, toothsome white bunny …
Or the Egyptian headdress – what do you say, Clom?
Why didn’t they work?
I’m for the emoticon, sparingly used as you say, like exclamation marks.
Do you know about stones? (http://www.plantingwords.com/2008/09/leaving-stones.html)
I like them too.
Enjoyed your first post, Rosy.
(o)
Rosy … I think you need spaces between them … like this …
You do realize, don’t you clom … that we’re now going to pepper the comments with them, just to annoy the grown ups?
Rosy,
MyBodyisNotaCharnelHouse kind of gave that away. I’ve never met a vegan that’s been that clever, or had as keen a sense of humour.
yours
BeefSteakMcKidneyface.
BeefSteakMcKidneyface – that’s going into my next book!
Hello Fiona. I’ll investigate stones. But did I say sparingly? I don’t think so!!!!
—–
oooo what happened there?
Not enough spaces, ducky …
Now you’re just showing off.
I have come to like emoticons. They really are necessary to prevent constant emo battles on internet forums. And the ones we have in the den are superb – I think I vary between the nice cat, the little man with the LOL sign and the cool afro dude.
By the way, I didn’t know you were on that opera forum I used to frequent…
I really need emoticons. My sort of po-faced humour doesn’t translate to the internet AT ALL. The amount of trouble I got myself into quite unwittingly when I first ventured into cyberspace was awe-inspiring.
A lot of the time, when I write on messageboards, I have my tongue fairly firmly in my cheek and I find it very hard to resist gentle chain-yanking. Sometimes, it’s almost impossible to convey the sentiment lurking behind a comment without an emoticon.
It can, of course, work the other way. They can be abused … used in an attempt to disguise something truly offensive.
Oh lordie. I am an emoticon fiend. I’ve even started drawing them in my writer’s notebook, e.g on coming back from chaotic park: “Investigate possibility of incorporating subtle dog-training tips into Chapter 1 action sequence? (scratching-head emoticon)” and underneath “Scrap that. FFS no more dog talk (winkie)” I mean, drawing emoticons to communicate with (and placate) yourself…? Tsk
Great first piece, Rosy!
Moira: “My sort of po-faced humour doesn’t translate to the internet AT ALL. The amount of trouble I got myself into quite unwittingly when I first ventured into cyberspace was awe-inspiring.
A lot of the time, when I write on messageboards, I have my tongue fairly firmly in my cheek and I find it very hard to resist gentle chain-yanking. Sometimes, it’s almost impossible to convey the sentiment lurking behind a comment without an emoticon.”
This is exactly my trouble with emoticons. Why should you feel to blame because someone’s read your contribution positively itching to take offence? Who were these gatekeepers who you got into trouble with when you first ventured online? Do you not feel that there’s a possibility that this experience has hamstrung your ability to express yourself as you see fit?
And when did I it become necessary to explicitly state that you’re engaging with “gentle chain-yanking”? I appreciate that multiple contributors changes the nature of “conversation” but is it really your problem or responsibility to expunge all mystery, double meaning or sublety from anything you write online?
Can you see where I’m coming from here?
You make a great point about how they’re used passive aggressively- that’s one of the most infuriating aspects in the conventions governing online discussion, the complete double standard that exists: if you inadvertently cause offence because some gonk thinks you’ve been mean about Margaret Drabble you’re expected to use your tongue in cheekie but people can merrily call you whatever they want with a few winkies thrown in and you’ve got to suck it up?
*gibber*
GAAAAH! Now I’m in a bad mood! (This is neither the fault of peoples comments nor the use of emoticons but the memory of futility of exhausting internet fights of the past that make me wish that my superpower be the ability to remotely detonate people’s monitors!)
I’m normal really. I swear.
I take your point completely, clom … (And I’m sure you’re normal. In fact I’m positive you are. Really. I am.)
The trouble is, being a (reasonably) courteous and old-fashioned soul, I truly don’t want to hurt other people’s feelings – not even humourless fungi with the IQs of brain-damaged woodlice.
The result, of course, can be rather like trying to get a pill down a cat’s throat. You don’t want to hurt the cat, but the cat is unfettered by any such considerations …
beautifully put!
Oh, Rosy, that did make me laugh, thank you!
Yes, I’ve become a fan of emoticons, and find myself using them in emails too, if I think the recipient will know what I mean (which isn’t guaranteed these days).
Like Moira, a lot of what I’m saying at any given moment is meant with that light shading of irony without which no English person would be – well – English. (and I do mean English: Welsh/HighlandScottish/LowlandScottish/Irish/Cornish/Manx… have I missed anyone?;) humour is quite different) By definition, irony can be taken in at least two ways, one of them at least boring and quite possibly offensive, the other amusing or at lease rueful, and what I really meant. In real life there’s the full repertoire of facial expression to make sure it gets across correctly, even on the phone there’s a lot you can do, but in cold type?
It’s not unconnected that the reason Rottweilers are so dangerous is that they’re the only attack dog which doesn’t give intention signals. Intention signals, which is what emoticons are, are vital between humans too.
Tee hee hee! (You see, I never used to say annoying things like “Tee hee hee” before entering internetland either. It’s a minefield.)
Just come back in and found all these comments. Clom and Moira you have made my day. I think, Clom, you are underestimating the serious number of total fruits out there. I’ve had my fair share of internet fights (as a lot of the foxes can testify to) but lately I’ve been thinking why waste so much time trying to convince some troll I’m right when – s/he’s a troll. And when s/he’s that fungi-thing with the IQ of a breadmould that Moira was talking about.
Emma and Lisa – a dog link going on here. Of course dogs express themselves through emoticon-like body language all the time. Along with sniffing each other’s bottoms, but that’s not appropriate on the net. Or any other time, really, in polite society.
Trouble is I only know how to do a winkie and smilie on wordpress. I really want to put the Afro, rabbit and the sketal scared face which I’m rather fond of too. This’ll have to do:
Emoticons are pretty much de rigeur when chatting online.
Anyone who refuses to use them, may as well have a sign over their name tag saying ‘Mr Angry’ or ‘Asbergers Sufferer’.
[...] 18, 2008 by rosyb First of the new series, as [...]
Highly amusing debut, Rosy. I laughed all the way through. And you certainly have sparked a discussion. I really hope Clom isn’t suggesting outlawing emoticons.
I would use them more often, but I’m usually so intent on what I’m saying that I forget about them. But I’m getting better at remembering, at least part of the time.
I do disagree with the myth that the internet doesn’t allow the intent of the writer to shine through, that we don’t always know what is meant, because we cannot go by tone or expressions. What rubbish! If that were true, we wouldn’t have known what so many authors have meant over hundreds of years in their books and plays. No one said that we couldn’t understand Swift’s irony or Shaw’s bite because they were writing, not speaking. Why is it different online? A person can still be nasty or sarcastic or kind on a computer, just as much as in person. A person’s style still shows through clearly, in a way, more so than if they were right in front of you, because you wouldn’t be distracted by the front they were presenting, so it’s more revealing of their personality. I don’t know why people insist on buying into the myth that miscommunication is so much easier online than in other mediums.It’s just not true.
Books and internet forums are entirely different media, Jackie. One is immediate, the other is not.
It can take years to craft a novel. You can whack out a comment on the internet in seconds. Emoticons are useful shortcuts.
Oh, I’m not against emoticons and they do inject humor & extra commentary. I just hate the whole “we can’t see/hear the other person typing online, so therefore we have no clue what they are really saying” idea. Newspapers are immediate, magazines slightly less so, still no problem with intent of writers there. And Letters to the Editors are whacked out in the heat of the moment too and most readers get what they are about.
None of them are as immediate as the internet, which can be like having a conversation except that you can neither see your interlocutor’s face nor hear their voice.
Take the expression “You fool”. Without any visual or aural clues at all, you couldn’t tell whether I was being rude or not. If, however, you could hear my tone of voice and see me smiling and shaking my head ruefully, you’d know I meant it affectionately. Or possibly not.
You know, it’s interesting what you say, Jackie. And I certainly have met some thoroughly amazing people on the internet. With some people (and actually I’d count yourself amongst them) they are very straight-up and I do feel I know where I am with them and perhaps you could say the internet allows for more self-expression and openness…but I think the internet can easily be abused by those who are more manipulative. It is all very well talking about those trying to communicate honestly – but I’ve certainly seen forums with trolls on usually pretending to be women when they are men and going for sobstories to get everyone on their side…and then just being abusive. They are rumbled in the end usually but if you saw them in real life they wouldn’t have a chance.
As for the misunderstanding thing – LOADS of people misunderstood Swift, didn’t they?
Well, Swift sort of wanted loads of people to misunderstand him. The fact that they did so proved his point.
I’m afraid I’m more or less with Clom, though I usually compromise as follows: I won’t complain about your frequent emoticons as long as you don’t insist that I use the foul things. Knowing my loathing for emoticons, my friends and relatives make a point of bombarding me with as many as humanly possible. In self-defence, I have learned tolerance, though I shall never go over to the Dark Side. And no, you are not my father, damn it.
I always have to resist a terrible, terrible urge to collect all the emoticons I can find, pile them in a pile, set them on fire, and dance exultantly around the flames, chanting, “Destroy the smilies! Destroy them! They were invented by the devil! As were Brussels sprouts! I need something better to chant!”
Well, you were doing okay, Kari, until you got to the brussels sprouts …
I had no idea that emoticons aroused such violent feelings in some people. Such animosity towards such harmless little smiley faces. It’s kinda sad, really.
Jackie: I feel the same way about Care Bears and people who hug themselves and use the phrase, “Ooh…squishy!” in 1) all seriousness and 2) public.
The “Oh..squishy” thing must be just in the UK, as I’ve never seen anyone doing it this side of the Pond. Well, maybe a 3 year old, but not a grown-up.
And now anti Care Bear. What is the world coming to?
Is it just Care Bears or is Paddington & Winnie the Pooh also included?
Jackie: I’m Canadian. And I made up the “Ooh…squishy!” thing.
Paddington and Winnie-the-Pooh are fine. Care Bears are all rainbow colours, and they are sickeningly cheerful and surrounded by little pink hearts. I wish to stamp on their happy little faces.
Perhaps I’ve simply been doing too much marking lately. Somehow, marking always sends me on a rampage against the Forces of Cuteness.
I love the idea of Brussel Sprouts being the forces of cuteness.
Kari, I will join you in the bonfire of the emoticons. We will drive our enemies before us and the air will be filled with their lamentations.
[...] 2, 2008 by rosyb Yes, it’s back. The Tuesday Alternative. With its aimless musings on All Things Word, Blog and [...]