Alternatively you can just ask any linguist, and they&#x27;ll assure you using &quot;literally&quot; for effect is not just ages old and used by lots of prominent writers, but also an absolutely legitimate use of language, typical of the inventiveness that moves language forward, and a use that has many more similar examples that people who complain about it wont think twice about using.<p>&gt;<i>Otherwise I&#x27;ll just assume that since they wrote a lot, there&#x27;s going to be some mediocre bits and padding in it. For</i><p>The thing is question wasn&#x27;t about it being good literature, but about it being legitimate use of language. It was more: &quot;prominent writers use it too, not just ignorant buffoon as idiots claim&quot; and less: &quot;it belongs to good literature&quot;.<p>As for it carrying any signal, that&#x27;s not something that can be refuted. It ALWAYS carries the signal of &quot;emphasis&quot; over the same phrase without it.