Why I don’t use emoticons
I was asked some days ago why I don’t use emoticons. And I decided to write here the answer. I don’t use emoticons because I consider them ineffective- I’m sure they won’t be exactly the most appropriate for a certain situation and person. I think that if I write to someone he should be able to infer my mood as I try to do with people. If you make the right deduction, you know someone well. Isn’t it a challenge to think always what your friend wanted to say, what he implied? Wouldn’t he feel better if you understand him without some ‘help’? (Shakespeare didn’t put emoticons on his sonnets to clarify the feelings he had (as far as I know)). And I don’t compare myself with him- this just proves that in normal communication we don’t need these.
Emoticons express the average emotions- they are statistics (and statistics can say that one happy and one sad person are approximately indifferent, which wouldn’t be right for both of them). Feelings are something complex- they can’t even be described with one word- how could a picture show them properly? How can I explain the feeling of happiness that I speak to someone but at the same time I’m really concerned that I might bore him- is that a ‘smile’ or a worried face? Or both? Or nothing? Or something else..?
And as a conclusion: People are complex, their emotions are complex, and emoticons are simple. They just don’t fit. I compare them to using ready- made phrases to write letters- it is always better if you think out something yourself. Although I don’t mind reading emoticons I don’t want to write them because I like to concentrate mainly on words. (And the chief reason is not only the fact that I’m not good in English).
December 26, 2007 at 1:07 pm
He he he (I deliberately used the exclamation instead of a smiley so as not to offend you.
.
…
…
Whoops, just realised I DID use an emoticon and despite your views I feel that that little smiling face just has to be there; I don’t want you to take the upper statement as an insult, that’s why I couldn’t refrain from using the emoticon. Which brings about another thought – that little glyph is equivalent to at least a dozen of words, maybe even more. Words are not everything… Pictures can be just as (if not even more) expressive – will you say that portraits such as the Gioconda tell you less about the emotions of the depicted character than, for example, some short novel?)
Also, since you mentioned Shakespeare as an example to prove that emoticons are redundant – the texts we write aren’t exactly sonnets, are they? What we do via internet is communicate. We do express our feelings to some extent but the exchange of words that occurs can hardly be called ‘a work of art’. Emoticons make our messages terse – if Shakespeare HAD used them, his works would’ve been half their size. Not quite something appropriate for an artist but certainly something very valuable to an average person.
I like to think of emoticons as the digital form of usual non-verbal communication. Grimaces, winks, squinting, vehement gestures – imagine communication without these. It doesn’t sound too appealing, does it? If you remove all these components, communication seems like a shorn sheep – it is still a sheep, but something key is missing. Gestures and facial expression do not provide any meaning, as words do, but give the communication between two people extra layers and undertones, reveal feelings and give both speakers the feeling that they’re communicating with a human being. And this is exactly what emoticons do – they enrich the text with emotion and undertones.
December 26, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Tee-hee! For once I am the one whose entry was VAST!
(I just have to, sorry)
December 26, 2007 at 8:27 pm
The first thing I should say is that I don’t want to persuade people not to use emoticons, I just explained my point of view about this problem- it is a matter of personal choice whether someone will or won’t use them. So, I am not offended if someone uses emoticons when he is writing (to me) – that’s his choice and I respect that.
(I tried, didn’t I, haha?)
Of course, I don’t say a picture can tell us less than a novel but an emoticon is not a picture and definitely not a work of art- it is only statistics, as I said.
What is valuable about a work of art are not to that extent the feelings it expresses but the way they are expressed- not so simple- you have to think a little. I don’t think a sonnet, Shakespeare’s for instance, might be valuable for the feelings (of love, for example) it shows (it is not a strange feeling) but the way they are expressed- the metaphorical language or even the way the words are organized.
We write in the Internet not mainly to express feelings but to exchange ideas and through them- feelings. And ideas are expressed with words.
And the last thing I will say- of course emoticons enrich the text with emotions but words can do the same and also these emotions might not be exactly the most proper- they are the simplest- happiness, for example. Who is completely happy (even for a moment)?
I say again- I’m not so complex and maybe that’s why I don’t use emoticons- I can’t always define my mood with one picture. Sorry!
December 30, 2007 at 11:29 am
A picture can tell a lot or little; a combination of picture and text could tell much more or less. It depends
January 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Gah, it’s all so relative, isn’t it? Sometimes I wish the world were plainer and… well, more absolute! Life would be so much easier.
January 3, 2008 at 10:46 pm
As Alfonso X “el Sabio” (“the Wise”), King of Galicia, Castile and León, has put it: “If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation thus [the world], I should have recommended something simpler.” What else can I add?
September 11, 2008 at 2:54 pm
lrtdwyso fwgnscvkx jpmqebrgt wozvbxkp njxriltgb mernvpu eyjbm