- 15,881
- 12,238
I think understand, this is a fair perspective. While not an exact one for one, there is a feat from a different series that I do have solid knowledge on, and the character states that they are absorbing the heat of the sun itself and visually it looks as though they are absorbing it from all around the it but another interpretation was she only absorbed the heat of the sun over the general area despite the visual look because the after effect doesn't match the first visual of the feat. It's not saying the character is using flowery language, it's just a different interpretation.. Again, this isn't the same as the feat from this verse but I'm just using it as an example that I think I understand the point you're trying to make. If I'm off on your point about interpretation, let me know.Looking back I don't have one great post, so I'd summarize it as...
I believe that the OP's interpretation is seeing a common turn of phrase when witnessing a certain phenomenon, and taking it too literally. As if you saw "he was up in an instant" and you tried arguing for infinite speed, because an instant is 0 seconds. Saying such a statement would probably mean something more like 1 second isn't saying that the narrator is lying.
My contention is that when people talk about objects in the sky, they often talk about them as they're perceived from the planet they're on. When people talk say "the sun will dim", they mean "the light from the sun coming to this part of the Earth will dim". And similarly, I think when the narrator says "Solus on the western horizon lost all its light", I think they mean "Solus on the western horizon, as it appears to people on this part of the planet, lost all its light". I don't think they're using some rich metaphors, I just think it's similar to how in most languages "star" just means "stellar object" and so covers planets and galaxies as well. The way we talk about stellar objects is more grounded in how we perceive them, than in how they actually are.
And so, I don't think the entirety of Solus' light was absorbed; only the amount that fell on a certain area of the planet for a time.
I guess I'll just say that I don't necessarily have a definitive stance regarding this topic anymore. However, I still think the interpretation in the OP is still possible, though I can't say what the true intention was (I'm not the author), and Agnaa isn't essentially wrong in how the it can be interpreted another way. It seems like the thread is in a deadlock and I think my opinion is going to change that so if nothing is decided upon, we could go for that possibly/likely rating (yes, I know some people don't like that compromise). Anyway, I'm still tired and don't have much else productive to add, I can only hope this thread reaches some conclusion.