/lit/ - Literature

>>20166809
I agree with you. I hope we move to emoji only communication. We don't need text anymore.

>>20166809
Emoji's don't expand language, they're reductionist in expression, vague and imprecise. Also, extremely informal. Sure, they're fine for casual texting, but I would never want to see them in a novel unless they're doing an epistolary format where the story is told through people's text messages.

>>20166809
I'm a TA and not even joking, but someone once handed in their report and it had emojis in it.
Like:
:) So, in conclusion

>>20166831
That's not an emoji, that's an emoticon

>>20166834
Sorry, I didn't know the difference. Still makes me laugh when I remember it.

>>20166834
I bet you're fun at the parties, pedant fuck ( ¬_¬)

>>20166809
They're too vague imo. It's a nightmare flirting with bitches under 25 trying to figure out what the hell they mean with these things, as if texting wasn't bad enough already

emojis are auxiliary. if you see someone respond with 1 emoji then the sentence is extremely boring

>>20166809

Somebody here remember that Nobokovs interview?

>>20166809
"ops as faggot" :gigachad:
op=:batchest:
:OmegaLul:

:pepePoint: at OP

>>20166874
This but opposite. When I had my tinder range all the way up to like 30 I noticed there was a very distinct cut off line where men just flat out stopped understanding. Like, any dude over 24 you have to put away the and start typing out “Haha!”

I want to rip out your eyes and skull fuck you, OP. Is there an emoji for this feel?

>>20167207
that was a crying emoji btw.

:KEKW: bruh thatd be :litty: THO

>>20166809
That's a bit like fantasyfags asking for fantasy to be accepted as serious literature. Instead of asking people to change existing definitions in order to grant legitimacy to garbage, how about you don't write garbage fantasy in the first place? Then the quality fantasy writing would automatically become serious literature.
So, if you can show us a piece of literature that uses emoji as an enhancement to the language, any reasonable reader will accept them. Usually that's how literature advanced in general - not through people somewhere talking and agreeing on what literature should be like, but through a writer actually creating shit and testing and putting ideas into practice.

>>20166809
the same reason slang isn't;
because they are not universal (i have no idea what picrel is supposed to mean) and they change very fast. it would be readable only to a small group for a short time.
but if that doesn't bother you, feel free to use them

>>20166853
I think its an important distinction to make. Using characters from your script to make something is fundamentally different then entirely different icons.

>>20166827
What about if the emojis are there as a specific literary device to drive home a theme? I'm thinking specifically of Zero HP Lovecraft's 'Don't Make Me Think' which deliberately floods the text with emojis as a way to annoy the reader.

>>20167425
To me, it sounds more like the reverse cope of 'literary' types attempting to maintain the facade of importance by gatekeeping any kind of change to their medium.
Emojis already enhance day-to-day written exchanges between people, they already enhance the conversations you're having on 4chan (what is a reaction image if not an emoji?). Emojis, if we define them as pictorial means of coloring the sentence, existed in printed literature for a while too in primitive forms - exclamation mark is an emoji (people even spam several of them just like emojis), CAPS is an emoji, writers employ italics and bold formatting to make certain words stand out.

>>20166809
writing an emoji is like saying "based", it's just as this guy says >>20166827 a vague and imprecise way to say "i approve of this", it's like anti-writing, nobody would want to read that because it's language devoid of detail, just tones of unarticulated emotion, that's the exact opposite of the direction you should be headed, why even write at that point?

>>20167841
You're not making sense.
Explain how the sentence
>I, in fact, quite enjoy peeing myself
less precise than
>I, in fact, quite enjoy peeing myself :Gigachad:

>>20167829
Anon, you missed the point so hard it's ridiculous. I'm asking again as in the case of fantasy: where is your great literature written with emoji? If there is none, what the fuck do you even want the "gatekeepers" to let past the gates?
Do you blame a biologist for not describing and classifying species of dragons? Maybe Musk announced that he'll genetically engineer dragons, but for now none is in sight...
Regarding the rest of your post, which is just muddying the waters with horrible definitions and ignoring the main issue, it has to be stated: pragmatic everyday communication is not literary communication, and vice versa. One can use the tools of the other, but for fundamentally different purposes. (Unless to you a text message with emoji and a 4chan shitpost with a Pepe jpg and a poem all have the same function, in which case you're not really trying to prove the literariness of emoji anymore but instead suggesting the non-existence of literariness in the first place.)

>>20167862
Nigga can you read at all? You're not making any sense. I never said emojis conveyed no information, certainly not negative information, so why on earth would saying the same thing twice and then adding an emoji be less precise? That's not what I said at all.

>>20166809
This is something I've been thinking for some time now, why do we not use emojis all the time? Not in the books, there are words there for a reason, but in normal internet conversations. Majority of communication between humans is done by non-verbal stuff, like expressions, body language etc.
Books get around that by literally describing what someone feels or behaves, while normal writing, like on 4chan for example, lacks that.

This is why so many people don't get jokes online. If you write 'you are a retard,' then without adding rolling eyes emote or laughing face the content of the message is entirely for subjective determination of the receiver.

Internet language without emojis is simply language of spergs and mental vegetables, and I believe it makes people inhuman by subtracting the emotional component of the language from common conversations.

Do I think we should all use emojis? Not really, but there should be some common movement towards creating universal emotes with certain expressions, even if only the most basic ones like 'sad' or 'smile'. Otherwise we are all dumber by being bereft of it.

>>20166809
Potentially the lowest qualoty thread I have ever seen. The written word alone is MORE communicative than the imagistic. Image is not thought but sense - good pros can teach you to think, notice, observe, and ponder, whereas a good image is just nice. If you want an image-text union they have it, it's called comics. I have seen academia be swallowed up in this post-literate conception and it's a hideous thing to behold. Images do not teach. Images instruct in the instinctual state of the other - frankly, they return us to the bodily expression rather than the intellectual. If you are a serious thinker, images are the enemy.

>>20166809
Read Ellul.

>>20168487
aren't words the most retarded shit ever? How long would it take you to describe this picture in detail? sure you might convey the general feel of the image but it will only be your interpretation whereas if you use the image you literally convey the whole image instantly as detailed as the pixels get. Try describing a person better than an image does. Its not possible. Also words are deceitful. If all we had were words, there would be no truth.

Faggots like you always lick the ass of the newest fucking trend despite the millennia of evidence that the traditional is better. What we've got from the nature is the best we have and unless you have evolved in a isolated Jewish Child's foreskin cultivating, intellectual hierarchy based society, you are better off seeing pictures than ''reading'' words.

>>20166809
you can't read them out loud.

:AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya! :AYAYA: ayaya!

>>20168383
Everything to be treated as ironic sarcasm.

>>20168991
>>aren't words the most retarded shit ever?
they are literally the most enabling thing ever invented.
>>the newest fucking trend
language isn't a new trend. it's been around for a while.

>>20168487
You do realise that words are also images, right? Every word a code corresponding to a certain image, or set of images in your head. The reason why 'crocodile' is a word and 'brapodile' isn't lies in the fact that the former evokes an image in your head while the latter does not. Even abstract, vague concepts work the same way. The word 'philosophy' evokes a flurry of associative imagery in your head - greek statues, ennobled academics, big brains, religious symbolics etc. Pure abstractions do not exist.

>>20168991
How long did it take the painter to draw this picture? I bet it was longer than it takes me to write "bunch of slavs try to plow a rocky promontory for some reason". Your argument is idiotic at it's core, how many images like that would it take to tell a coherent story? If the images are so powerful how come comicbooks still employ speech bubbles and take 500 issues to tell a story less epic than a single novel? How come we communicate through words right now when 4chan supports images?

>>20168383
You infer the tone of a post from context. Forcing people to understand the context properly before they are able to connect to what people post is not a bad thing. People who don't recognise tone in these circumstances are generally quite stupid

If Plato existed today he'd be adding emojis to all of his writing. I can't wait to read a book and just have the character respond with a ":("

>>20169046
>You do realise that words are also images, right?
Bitter. Next.

>>20168991
>Faggots like you always lick the ass of the newest fucking trend despite the millennia of evidence that the traditional is better.
Which IMAX do they employ you in to project? Full-time or part?

>>20169102
your description degenerated the beautiful image into a few words which do not describe even a fraction of the image's impression.

>Your argument is idiotic at it's core, how many images like that would it take to tell a coherent story?

around 113760. One Hundred and One Dalmatians(objectively good film) is 79 minutes and 24 fps which is 113760 pictures. The book which the movie was based on has 192 pages with approximately 48 000 words. Now the number of words is lower than the number of pictures but the movie only takes 79 minutes. Which is way less than it would take you to read the book.

>If the images are so powerful how come comicbooks still employ speech bubbles and take 500 issues to tell a story less epic than a single novel?

Because they are retarded. Again if you watched the Dalmatian movie without sound, I am pretty sure you would get at least 70% of the movies plot and story. So no words or speech bubbles are necessary.

>How come we communicate through words right now when 4chan supports images?

The reason why we don't communicate with images instead of words is because 4chan doesn't support videos otherwise I would have already posted a video of me beating the shit out of your ugly ass.

>>20169020
yes yes words enable everything but they will never enable you to get bitches. just get out of your word fantasy and get real. Pictures are the thing and they have always been.

>>20169114
>You infer the tone of a post from context. Forcing people to understand the context properly before they are able to connect to what people post is not a bad thing. People who don't recognise tone in these circumstances are generally quite stupid
People can GENERALLY understand the tone of a sentence from context, but not always. And even that is subjective to a cultural circle of the writer. Emojiis aren't perfect, but they are still more universal.

>>20166809
Shut up, retard.

>>20168991
when anime artists only learn to draw one face

>>20166809
Get a linguist or someone in here to debate your dumb-ass on the semantics, but what happens when they overtake the language? Increasingly language is reactive as opposed to proactive, this just furthers that trend.

>>20166809
What high intelligence and 0 wisdom do to a person. This is retarded regardless of whether this is a bait you enjoy.
What next, adding twitch emotes to paintings to emphasise the feelings conveyed?