Hacker News Reader

Comment by readams | Hacker News Reader

In these modern times of ours, the word literally has taken on a new meaning, which is "not literally but with emphasis." This seems like the most likely explanation.

View on HN

Even if that's the intended meaning of literally, it is still a reckless exaggeration. I'm pretty sure that Stephenson's endings are no more abrupt than some of Shakespeare's (check out Hamlet and Macbeth) or some of Frank Herbert's (see Dune and Children of Dune), and I never hear anyone go out of their way to describe either of them as being unable to write endings.

Everything from Stephenson after Anathem is an unremitting slog. He needs an editor who won't back down from telling him he needs to cut a third of his pages.

Reamde and Fall are quite readable. But what does this have to do with endings?

Remade was snappy but Fall went on forever.

> some of Frank Herbert's (see Dune and Children of Dune),

I mean, Dune does in fact end mid-story, which is probably worse.

No, no it doesn't. Are you talking about the recent movies that split the first novel into two movies? The novel Dune ends after Paul defeats his enemies and becomes emperor.

The Dune series has six novels, the final one is Chapter House Dune, which does in fact end mid story.

I know this because I read them in the 90s and didn't realise that Frank Herbert was dead for quite some time after reading Chapter House.

I know that, I've read them too. In the SP, and in this thread we're discussing endings to novels. No one is complaining about a series that isn't finished due to the author's death.

Hence my comment, "which is probably worse".

I interpret the sense of "literally" here in the opposite way, i.e. without it the sentence may be taken to mean that the books metaphorically stop mid-sentence, but with it, they're saying that it's non-metaphorical and they really do. It would be bizarre wording otherwise.

These modern times that literally began in 1769. Oxford English Dictionary, “literally (adv.), sense I.1.c,” June 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/9189024563.

The use of the word "literally" to be used as emphasis started in the 1700s, and people have been complaining about it since at least 1909

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literally#As_an_intensifier

Hard to believe this when it's such a cut and dry claim about text. What does exaggeration even imply in that context?

“Literally” is commonly used as emphasis, but not as hyperbole. So it’s still a misleading misrepresentation just the same.

literally

Reply on news.ycombinator.com