The word "literal" here is slightly more complicated than in the usual commonplace misuse of the word.

The author is trying to distinguish between "wallflower" the "socially awkward person" and "wallflower" the "person who stands near a wall". They are using a slightly more literal definition, but not the most literal (i.e. the plant).

The justification is that "being near the wall" =/= "being in a high-traffic area".

I appreciate the point you're making.

Re-read the quote I have in my comment and remove the word 'literal'. Does that sentence have more, less, or the same meaning / power to you?

Without 'literal': don't be shy

With 'literal': don't stand by the wall

Are you seriously suggesting there's a profound loss of meaning between:

> There’s a moment in your book that I love, when you give advice to awkward people looking for social shortcuts, and you tell them not to be literal wallflowers.

and

> There’s a moment in your book that I love, when you give advice to awkward people looking for social shortcuts, and you tell them not to be wallflowers.

Why does the threshold have to be "profound" for word choice and phrasing decisions?

There is a non-trivial difference in connotation between the two sentences.

In vernacular conversation "wallflower" can be used as a term to connote (strong) shyness or to indicate generalized presence on the periphery of an event. In the sentence from the article, "literal" helps to shift emphasis away from the "shy" connotation. Without it, or some other way to emphasize connotation, the sentence is easier to misinterpret as follows:

"..., and you tell them not to be too shy."

Yes. The former can be argued as more polite, because you're suggesting an alternate course of action (don't stand near wall), and the latter can be construed as an attack on a person's mentality (you're a shy person, don't be that way [that's bad]).

In US English at least, alternate can be used as a direct synonym for alternative. Idk if it's the same in British English. Might be different like the phrase "just in case", etc.

Couldn't this whole thread be avoided if they had said, "and you tell them not to stand by walls". Or even, "not to literally stand by walls" - both work in this case! :-)

The world literal was been used to speak figuratively literally since Beowulf:

"4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually: I literally died when she walked out on stage in that costume."

I understand that, but we already have a word for that -- figuratively.

I'm a long-term fan of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (and accept that it's not without dispute).

It doesn't mean the same thing as "figuratively". "I figuratively died laughing" doesn't mean anything to most people; most English-speakers won't understand what you mean by it. I mean, that usage of "figuratively" was invented purely as a reaction to non-literal "literally" so only people who have heard of this usage debate will understand what you're doing.

"I literally died laughing" doesn't mean the same thing as "I died laughing", either. "Literally" functions as an intensifier here, and therefore the former sentence is stronger.

Yeah, okay, I shouldn't have suggested the use of the word 'figuratively' as a surrogate for some emphatic adjective.

Would you be happy with 'I died laughing ...' when people describe something especially funny? (I would, for the record.)

And/or do you think 'I literally died laughing ...' (when people didn't actually die from laughing) to be more emphatic / compelling a commendation?

If someone said 'I literally died twice from laughter ...' would that be doublepluscompelling?

>Would you be happy with 'I died laughing ...' when people describe something especially funny? (I would, for the record.)

Then you would already be OK with something analogous to using "literally" as an intensifier.

Since, of course, "died" also means something specific that's unrelated to laughing, and the person uttering the phrase doesn't imply that they actually died.

>If someone said 'I literally died twice from laughter ...' would that be doublepluscompelling?

No, that's why people don't say it. It's the historical evolution of language that dictates what's "doublepluscompelling" or not, not some a priori rules.

"He literally glowed; without a word or a gesture of exultation a new well-being radiated from him and filled the little room." - F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby

like

Now you're just coming off as mad at intensifiers in general. Sure, you can write without them. Doesn't stop them from being useful.

None of this is important.

>I understand that, but we already have a word for that -- figuratively.

In Vulcan it's usually frowned upon, but human languages often use nuance, play, context, and (gasp) more than one word for the same notion.

Moreover, the value of a word is not in its definition, but in its use. Even if "literally" (in this usage scenario) means the same as "figuratively" they both have very different connotations and impact on the listener.

I'm a stickler for appropriate use of literal/figurative, and I think it was used correctly here. In addition to the clarifying effect mentioned by other posters, the literal use of the word "wall" is being emphasized. No, you're not a literal flower on the wall, but you are a "wallflower" (figurative) that is standing by a wall (literal). Applying "literal" to half a compound word is unusual, but I can't think of a better way to phrase the concept.