'Moby Dick' to be translated into emoticons

[snopes]

Herman Melville's classic novel Moby Dick is to be translated into Japanese emoticons using the crowd-sourcing power of the internet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...emoticons.html

[purpleiguana]

Okay... I get that the phone means "call" and I can even get behind the little dude's head to mean "me," but just how in the hell does sailboat+whale+OK mean "Ishmael?"

[Phil'sGirl]

Originally Posted by purpleiguana

Okay... I get that the phone means "call" and I can even get behind the little dude's head to mean "me," but just how in the hell does sailboat+whale+OK mean "Ishmael?"

Ishmael was the only one to survive, which means he was OK after the sailboat met the whale.

Not sure why they'd do this with the coolest book ever, but I guess you have to start somewhere.

[Andrew of Ware]

This reminds me of the picture puzzles you got in comics when I was young.

[Dutch Angua]

Are they gonna use the Starbucks logo for, well, Starbuck?

[purpleiguana]

Originally Posted by Phil'sGirl

Ishmael was the only one to survive, which means he was OK after the sailboat met the whale.

Okay, that makes sense if you've read the book.

Not sure why they'd do this with the coolest book ever, but I guess you have to start somewhere.

A novelty is my guess. I would never want to read a book like that. Literacy is already failing with text speak... I can't imagine just how high a cliff things would dive off of if it got reduced to smilies.

[Seburiel]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

This reminds me of the picture puzzles you got in comics when I was young.

You mean a rebus?

[Andrew of Ware]

Originally Posted by Seburiel

You mean a rebus?

Yes, although some of the puzzles had pictures and words or letters. For example flog could be represented by a a picture of a flag with a letter 'a' crossed out and an 'o' next to it.

[Tarquin Farquart]

I think this is fantastic, even better than the lolcat bible.

[Phil'sGirl]

Originally Posted by purpleiguana

Okay, that makes sense if you've read the book.

I guess they're presuming that most people have read it, but I imagine a lot of people in the target audience have not.

A novelty is my guess. I would never want to read a book like that. Literacy is already failing with text speak... I can't imagine just how high a cliff things would dive off of if it got reduced to smilies.

Exactly.

What's your take on the works of Shakespeare being written as graphic novels? Good, or bad?

[purpleiguana]

Originally Posted by Phil'sGirl

What's your take on the works of Shakespeare being written as graphic novels? Good, or bad?

If by "graphic novel" you mean "comic book" (I never really understood the distinction... except that maybe one isn't funny, and comics are generally thought of as funny... or that the novel indicates it's more than 20 pages in length or whatever), then I would say it depends on how it's done. I've seen some that were highly meh (and that in and of itself is maybe giving more credit than it was due), and some that were really, really well done.

If the text were kept intact and the pictures only served to help the text make sense (I've gotten REALLY lose just reading Shakespeare... but seeing it acted out, I rarely got lost at all), then I guess it could be okay... it depends on how it's done.

I can appreciate the whole idea of converting text into more modern lingo... hey, if it gets the kids to read Shakespeare!... but generally, I like the original untampered with. So if the graphic novelization tampered too much with the original, it might get under my skin in a bad way. But then... no one's making me read it, right?

[Phil'sGirl]

Originally Posted by purpleiguana

If by "graphic novel" you mean "comic book" (I never really understood the distinction... except that maybe one isn't funny, and comics are generally thought of as funny... or that the novel indicates it's more than 20 pages in length or whatever), then I would say it depends on how it's done. I've seen some that were highly meh (and that in and of itself is maybe giving more credit than it was due), and some that were really, really well done.

If the text were kept intact and the pictures only served to help the text make sense (I've gotten REALLY lose just reading Shakespeare... but seeing it acted out, I rarely got lost at all), then I guess it could be okay... it depends on how it's done.

I can appreciate the whole idea of converting text into more modern lingo... hey, if it gets the kids to read Shakespeare!... but generally, I like the original untampered with. So if the graphic novelization tampered too much with the original, it might get under my skin in a bad way. But then... no one's making me read it, right?

Nope, no one will make you read it.

And honestly, I don't get the distinction either, unless it has to do with all of the graphic novels that I have read being full of sex and violence. Which would make them graphic? Maybe?

Thanks for your reply.