Judy:
It's just that if you don't use the signals
> selectively, they lose their meaning. It's like
> putting an exclamation point after every sentence;
> it gives each sentence the same emphasis, so the
> exclams cancel each other out.
A:
Yes, agreed.
>
> (I find that I tend to use smileys more as a kind of
> punctuation than as signals of humor per se. I'm
> not quite sure what I mean by that, but I don't
> know how else to describe it...)
Akasha:
> > One might argue it wasn't funny then. I disagree. Thats not always
> > the case. I find, often, When the "serious reader" reads the barb
> > satire in a new light ("oh its a joke"), they do laugh. I have
> > examples, I have names. (and thats a funny sentence -- but
without voice nuance, many may read it as serious.) Without voice
nuance, distinguishing between multiple possible interpreations is a
problem.
J:
> I almost always know when you're being funny, whether
> you use smileys or not.
A:
But I think you read carefully and are open to multiple meanings
Possibly enhanced by your worki in editing. I know that my self-edity
helps my reading skills.
J:
> Some of this has to do with who's doing it. When
> someone who is routinely really nasty to others puts
> smileys after all their barbs, it's obvious they're
> not genuine. (And even if they were, that the person
> would think such nastiness was funny doesn't say much
> for their character.)
A:
Yes. But such "profiling" or pre-judgement can also have its pitfalls.
I know some readers have gotten it in their mind sets that I write
nasty things. In the past maybe it was a bit more pointed, though not
nasty IMO. Regardless, they have trouble shifting gears. It appears
that lots of stuff is first, and perhaps only seen as being an insult
-- when indeed it is meant as humor. (This has changed over the past
months perhaps, people do slowly change their "stereotyping".
J:
> It also depends very much on the wording of the barb,
> and the specific context. There's a just-over-the
> edge quality to humorous barbs that tends to be
> lacking in barbs that are meant seriously.
A:
Yes. Skillful writing involves providing the proper tip offs and
nuances in words, not relying on voice inflect. Or Emoticons -- which
ultimately, IMO are a sigh of lazy writing.
J:
> And when someone who is normally light-hearted, and
> usually delivers light-hearted barbs, suddenly
> comes up with one that's serious in tone, and
> surrounds it with smileys, it's even more discordant.
> If the barb had been meant humorously, they could
> easily have phrased it in their usual light-hearted
> manner.
A:
Agreed.
A:
> > One thing mature readers can do, is, before going off on some
pitta rampage, is think "I am seeing this as an insult. I wonder if it
can be seen in another light". Sort of like the foreground /
background figures.
> >
> > Why some are predisposed to first see everything as insults, well
> > thats another issue. It would probably take a good therapist to
> > unravel it.
> A lot of it depends on the relationship between the
> person delivering the barb and the target. You and
> I have a fairly cordial relationship, so if you were
> to send a barb my way sans smiley, my first assumption
> would be that it was humorous. So far, at least, it
> would be unusual for you to say something really
> nasty to me.
A:
Yes. History is a big factor. But as per my comments above, it can
cast ones view of another in steel sometimes and the flexibility is
lost. Thats why looking for multiple interpreations is always
important. And giving the benefit of the doubt. Assume humor first.
If the data does not fit that interpretative model, THEN go on to
other interpreations.
J;
> So there's a kind of benefit of the doubt involved.
> With certain others here, it wouldn't make a lot of
> sense to wonder whether they were being insulting
> or not. If they do deliver a barb that they don't
> mean to be taken seriously--which does happen
> occasionally--they know how to phrase it in a way
> that makes this clear, with or without smileys.
>
> Obviously these aren't hard-and-fast dividing lines;
> a lot of nuance is involved that can easily be
> missed. Sometimes smileys help, sometimes they done .
A:
Yes. But I have made a conscious effort in the last month to minimize
them. Like "if you don't get joke -- well then never mind"
J:
> But the effect of *always* using smileys is the same
> as that of *never* using smileys, except that the
> former tends to make you look phony, whereas the
> latter can make you look nastier than you mean to be
> (which is the case with me sometimes, I'm afraid; I
> should probably use them more often, but I tend to
> avoid them because I have such a strong preference
> for deadpan).
A:
Yes, deadpan is what makes a lot of things funny. The smiley can
destroy that. And is sort of condescending ("hey, its a joke, I put
the smiley in cuz I figured you were too dumb to get it.")
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
