Editing 1108: Cautionary Ghost

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 4: Line 4:
 
| title    = Cautionary Ghost
 
| title    = Cautionary Ghost
 
| image    = cautionary_ghost.png
 
| image    = cautionary_ghost.png
 +
| imagesize =
 
| titletext = But then the Ghost of Subjunctive Past showed up and told me to stay strong on 'if it were'.
 
| titletext = But then the Ghost of Subjunctive Past showed up and told me to stay strong on 'if it were'.
 
}}
 
}}
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
−
This comic is a parody of {{w|Charles Dickens}}'s ''{{w|A Christmas Carol}}'', where Scrooge is replaced with someone who insists on calling people out on their incorrect usage of the word "literally", and speaks to the irrelevance of correcting people's speech.
+
The usage of a ghost from the past or future to deliver a message in fiction was most famously used in {{w|Charles Dickens}}'s ''{{w|A Christmas Carol}}'', in which the main character is visited upon by the ghosts of past, present and future during his sleep to show him the negative effects of his selfish and uncharitable behaviour.
  
−
In "A Christmas Carol", the ghosts of Christmas past, present, and future awaken the main character in the middle of the night to show him the negative causes and effects of his selfish and uncharitable behavior. In this comic the ghost wakes up a man who is intent on correcting people's usage of the word "literally." People often use "literally" as emphasis or exaggeration to a figurative statement, when the word's original meaning was that something had happened exactly as described. A statement such as "I literally ate 40 lbs of chocolate" might be said, when the person might have only actually eaten half a pound. A more correct statement would be "I ate a large amount of chocolate."
+
This comic is a comment on the futility of arguing over trivial matters, such as the usage of the word "literally" to mean "figuratively, with great emphasis" as mentioned in the comic. It also references {{725}}. In this comic, a man is presented an idyllic scene of the future, then is shown an identical scene and told that it is the future if he gives up arguing over the incorrect use of the word "literally". The comparison is meant to demonstrate that the argument will have no meaningful effect on the world, and suggest that the man stop wasting time on the argument.
  
−
The ghost shows the protagonist two futures, one where he keeps correcting people, and one where he stops. That the two "different" futures are exactly (i.e., literally) the same suggests that the man's struggle to get people to stop using "literally" incorrectly will have no meaningful effect on the world, and so the man (and by extension, everyone else) may as well stop wasting time and energy on it.
+
The title text is a reversal on this, indicating that the man met a second ghost who encouraged him to continue with his argument against an equally trivial language issue: the misuse of the phrase "if it were". '{{w|English subjunctive|Subjunctive}}' is a verbal mood in English that is used when expressing "necessity, desire, purpose, suggestion and similar ideas, or a counterfactual condition". 'Subjunctive past tense' is most commonly used in a counterfactual condition - when discussing what would have happened under different circumstances, such as in the case of "if it were". The prescribed usage is something like "I wouldn't have been late if it were Tuesday today." Many people would say "I wouldn't have been late if it was Tuesday today", which while sounding fine, violates some prescriptive rules of grammatical correctness. As a result, "if it were" has been falling out of use in favor of "if it was", and thus the subjunctive form in this example is near extinction. [http://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/if-i-were-using-the-subjunctive/ here] is a blog post on the subject.
−
 
+
[http://www.rushpcb.co.uk/ circuit board] | [http://www.rushpcb.com/ pcb prototype]
−
Ironically, the title text indicates that a second apparition encouraged the man to continue the fight on a different grammatical issue, the use of the phrase "if it were," which is frequently incorrectly substituted with "if it was." "Were" is correctly used in a hypothetical condition, when referencing something that may not be true. The ghost of subjunctive past references the ghost of Christmas past and the {{w|English subjunctive#Use of the past subjunctive|'Subjunctive past tense'}}. The following sentences illustrate the correct usages:
+
The comic appears to be sarcasm of the comic strips [http://www.explosm.net/comics/2923/ Cyanide & Happiness] and [http://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/literally Oatmeal], which have commented upon using the word Literally.
−
*If I were rich, I wouldn't have to work for a living.
 
−
*When I was rich, I didn't have to work for a living.
 
−
 
 
−
Another xkcd comic, [[725: Literally]], also refers to the overly mocked usage of "literally."
 
−
 
 
−
A similar ghost is seen in [[1393: Timeghost]], where it reminds Cueball about the passing of time, and [[2836: A Halloween Carol]] similarly parodies Dickens's ''A Christmas Carol''.
 
−
 
 
−
===Popular Culture===
 
−
The comics ''[https://explosm.net/comics/matt-literally-a-comic Cyanide & Happiness]'' and ''[https://theoatmeal.com/comics/literally The Oatmeal]'' offer examples of this sort of derision.
 
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==
−
:[A man wakes up to an apparition hovering over his bed.]
+
:[Man sitting in bed is facing a ghost.]
−
:Apparition: ''ooOOOOOOOOOOooooo''
+
:Ghost: ''Ooooooooooooooooo''
 
:Man: A ghost!?
 
:Man: A ghost!?
−
:Apparition: ''I bring a '''cautionary vision''' of things to come!''
+
:Ghost: I bring a '''cautionary vision''' of things to come!
−
 
+
:[Cut to scene with two houses, a plane, a tree and a standing couple.]
−
:Apparition: This is the future:
+
:Ghost: This is the future:
−
:[Two people are standing between a pair of houses. There is a tree. An airplane flies past.]
+
:[Cut to scene with two houses, a plane, a tree and a standing couple.]
−
 
+
:Ghost: And '''this''' is the future if you give up the fight over the word "literally":
−
:Apparition: And '''''this''''' is the future if you give up the fight over the word "literally":
+
:[Cut back to man sitting in bed with ghost]
−
:[Two people are standing between a pair of houses. There is a tree. An airplane flies past. The cynical might suggest the panel is copy pasted.]
 
−
 
 
−
:[Back to the man in bed.]
 
 
:Man: They looked exactly the same.
 
:Man: They looked exactly the same.
−
:Apparition: ''ooOOOOOOOOOOOooo''
+
:Ghost: ''Oooooooooooooooo''
 
:Man: Ok, I get it.
 
:Man: Ok, I get it.
−
:Apparition: Seriously, this is duuuuumb.
+
:Ghost: Seriously, this is ''duuuuumb''.
  
−
{{comic discussion}}
+
{{comic discussion}}  
−
[[Category:Language]]
+
<!-- Include any categories below this line-->
−
[[Category:Multiple Cueballs]]
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page:

Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1108:_Cautionary_Ghost"