Yeah, this I agree with. Fowler was complaining about it in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), which, to me, says that it was already in common use. Hope this cite works.
It’s nearly been 90 years, and not even the grammarian’s grammarian, H.W. Fowler, managed to stamp out its usage. Ship. Has. Sailed.
On second thought, I want to revise this slightly. Alcott isn’t deliberately creating confusion between the denotative meaning and the hyperbolic meaning of the word. Rather, she’s using an expression that is almost always idiomatic and is applying “literally” to it to show that in this case it isn’t idiomatic, deriving humor from this unexpected twist.
The thing is, when “literally” is applied to an idiom, it’s nearly always meant as an intensifier: if I say something is “literally the land of milk and honey,” I almost never mean that we’re talking actual milk, actual honey. So yeah, this is a source where there’s legit initial confusion.
But the word “initial” is important, because if you read it carefully, you’ll see that this is a case in which the author is twisting the idiom itself, and therefore an intensifier doesn’t work on it.
It’s not a case in which a careful reader has any lasting confusion about what’s meant.
How else are you supposed to make it clear that you’re stating something without exaggeration or hyperbole? Our every day language is riddled with hyperbole. It trivializes our conversations. The word “literally” helps clarify that whatever you state is a honest feeling or something that actually happened. That’s how I use it anyhow. I can’t speak for other people.
Hyperbole makes conversations more vibrant and interesting. But, there’s a time when it a person needs to make it clear they are speaking honestly and plainly.
Are you sure? Why don’t you read it a few more times and get back to me on what she really meant–since, per your overly sarcastic comment yesterday you were 100% sure you knew her mindset.
If you were a Lacanian deconstructionist, you might at least have a philosophy to back up your petulance. As it is, it’s just sad.
Yes, actually: good readers sometimes reread and revise their understanding. That’s part of being a good reader. If you think I’m suggesting I’m 100% certain I knew her mindset, you may wish to practice those good reading skills yourself.
Nah, that’s still a mere intensifier. “Ripped to shreds” adequately captures the literal meaning you intend. “Literally” is thus superfluous; you use it only to add whimsy and exasperation to your story, as it does when used purely figuratively.