Sindriss 52 Posted January 26, 2019 (edited) "Call me Silas." He pushed the money away and stood, dragging his eyes away from the tome... Edited January 26, 2019 by Sindriss 2 1 Eldan985, Freeman and Antimarkovnikov reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsuruki 197 Posted January 27, 2019 Fancy language is hard to read? 1 Goshiu reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Network57 561 Posted January 27, 2019 9 hours ago, Sindriss said: "Call me Silas." He pushed the money away and stood, dragging his eyes away from the tome... Do you have any examples of why you find it unreadable? 1 Goshiu reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SGPrometheus 121 Posted January 27, 2019 So by literally, you mean figuratively. 7 Carthoris, Freeman, Goshiu and 4 others reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColinEdwards 48 Posted January 27, 2019 (I think he means literally, but in the original sense, not in the modern post-ironic sense.) Dragging your eyes sounds pretty painful, literally speaking! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eldan985 360 Posted January 27, 2019 He has only one eye and an eyepatch. 2 KalEl814 and Carthoris reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSerpent 520 Posted January 27, 2019 Maybe the book includes how he lost his eye? Or maybe he has a box of glass eyes, like Charles Dance in Last Action Hero, which was sitting near a tome, and he dragged it away. 3 rsdockery, Freeman and Eldan985 reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkFate 70 Posted January 28, 2019 Maybe thats how he lost one of his eye. 1 ColinEdwards reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eldan985 360 Posted January 28, 2019 You mean dragging it across a really splintery table? 2 rsdockery and phillos reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Allonym 954 Posted January 28, 2019 There's quite a few instances referring to Silas'"eyes", even though the book really belabours the point that he only has one eye. I thought the story was OK in a pulpy sort of way, though very rushed, but really needed better editing and proofreading. 2 rsdockery and Carthoris reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KBlumhardt 378 Posted January 30, 2019 On 1/27/2019 at 12:16 AM, SGPrometheus said: So by literally, you mean figuratively. I can't wait until we get past this stupid thing with using 'literally' for everything, especially since people generally mean the opposite (figuratively). Someday it will hopefully be something we laugh at, like when "bad" meant "good" back in the 80s. 2 dysartes and Goshiu reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mep 2,291 Posted January 30, 2019 It's an FFG novel. Have realistic expectations and move on. 1 Goshiu reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Network57 561 Posted January 31, 2019 5 hours ago, KBlumhardt said: I can't wait until we get past this stupid thing with using 'literally' for everything, especially since people generally mean the opposite (figuratively). Someday it will hopefully be something we laugh at, like when "bad" meant "good" back in the 80s. I think by literally he meant literally because it's impossible read something after your eyeballs have been literally dragged across a table. 2 Eldan985 and rsdockery reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KBlumhardt 378 Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Network57 said: I think by literally he meant literally because it's impossible read something after your eyeballs have been literally dragged across a table. Judging by how the OP bolded the word "eyes", I'm pretty sure they were upset that the editors of the book let that slip past, since Silas only has one eye. Thus, the poor editing apparently makes the book 'literally' (blegh) unreadable. Edited January 31, 2019 by KBlumhardt 1 Goshiu reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eldan985 360 Posted January 31, 2019 Well it's literally unreadable for me. Because I literally don't have it. 1 3 dysartes, Goshiu, phillos and 1 other reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iuchi Toshimo 230 Posted January 31, 2019 Fun with English: center embedding edition! The rat ate the malt. The rat the cat killed ate the malt The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt. Perfect grammar, yet harder to read than an plurality oversight. 1 rsdockery reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColinEdwards 48 Posted January 31, 2019 In some bizarre way, I think virtually and literally have literally become virtually the same. 1 Carthoris reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carthoris 248 Posted January 31, 2019 Maybe. The opposite of literal is figurative, while the opposite of virtual is actual. Some people seem to use literally to mean actually. (And in most cases, they could improve their language style and lose no meaning by dropping either adverb altogether.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rsdockery 537 Posted January 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Iuchi Toshimo said: The rat the cat the dog chased killed ate the malt. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. 2 dysartes and Iuchi Toshimo reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Network57 561 Posted January 31, 2019 Oh my gosh, it's almost as if language changes over time! 1 rsdockery reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSerpent 520 Posted January 31, 2019 1 hour ago, Carthoris said: Maybe. The opposite of literal is figurative, while the opposite of virtual is actual. Some people seem to use literally to mean actually. (And in most cases, they could improve their language style and lose no meaning by dropping either adverb altogether.) I'd rather people misuse "literally" than have to see the word "actually" again. 1 Carthoris reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kowal85 3 Posted January 31, 2019 On 1/26/2019 at 8:38 PM, Sindriss said: "Call me Silas." He pushed the money away and stood, dragging his eyes away from the tome... Learn Polish language every word has 200 posibility of meaning ^^ Or even more hehe, try it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carthoris 248 Posted January 31, 2019 1 hour ago, CSerpent said: I'd rather people misuse "literally" than have to see the word "actually" again. I'd say there are unbeatable odds that you'll have to suffer both--proof that you live in an uncaring and inimical universe. 2 CSerpent and rsdockery reacted to this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ColinEdwards 48 Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) I think 'literally' is mostly used ironically to emphasize metaphorical points so much that its meaning has changed in the vernacular to actually mean 'approximately' rather than 'exactly as written'. Actually, that's literally ironic, yah? (Or is it just hypothetically ironic?) Edited February 1, 2019 by ColinEdwards Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KBlumhardt 378 Posted February 1, 2019 9 hours ago, ColinEdwards said: I think 'literally' is mostly used ironically to emphasize metaphorical points so much that its meaning has changed in the vernacular to actually mean 'approximately' rather than 'exactly as written'. Actually, that's literally ironic, yah? (Or is it just hypothetically ironic?) Maybe by some... but I'd argue most people who abuse 'literally' do it simply out of habit or because they've heard so many other people use it and don't really understand what it is actually supposed to mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
