![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() ![]() |
||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() Info Archive |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||
|
[ Donate : Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Save The Rhino ] <Prev Next> Subject: Re: Language and the Internet ( 26 of 58 ) Posted by bubster >A writer does not use emoticons in a book. A writer does >not need these tools to express emotion. The words are >available to use, but the offer is declined and a :) is >used instead. I think of it not so much as the equivalent of writing a book as writing dialogue for a play. In books you tend to write "dialogue" and "action": He shook his fist ineffectively at the sky, crying, 'You'll never catch me alive, Spartus!' Even in the first person you tend to get voice and action: I got up in the morning and thought, 'What's it all about, Alfie?'. But what's happening in posts on the net is dialogue. I think it would be rare to find a (good) book of dialogue that didn't employ some sort of descriptive language to embellish the dialogue of the characters. Emoticons and *whistling merrily as I go*-type comments are like the direction you find with dialogue in a script. Having said that, they are merely one way to embellish what is being said. Really good use of words often needs no added extras. <Prev Next>
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|