The construction wasn't "fixing her gaze on the shrine" (which would be correct), it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense. What the article says means either "she fastens the shrine into place using her eyes" or "she repairs the shrine with her eyes".
Indeed, the construction gives the feeling that the shrine itself might float away without her gaze, such is the intensity of her watching it. That is purposeful. It comes from the common phrase "she fixed him with her gaze" which means, not as much that her gaze was fixed on him, as that he froze when he saw her looking at him.
I think it was a conscious and valid choice to use this in relation to a static holy object in this context.
"fixing the shrine with her gaze" totally makes sense (I'm also a native speaker of English, that makes four) and is semantically equivalent to "fixing her gaze on the shrine", it merely chooses to emphasize "the shrine" as the object, rather than "her gaze". Clearly "fix" here means "attaching securely"(/"locking on to") not "repairing", that Collins citation already given above also defined "fix" https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix
And adding the preposition "with" to get the preposition phrase "with her gaze" doesn't change the meaning: clearly the sentence is about her gaze being firmly on the shrine (not the shrine being firmly on her gaze).
> it was "fixing the shrine with her gaze", which makes no sense.
Again, I disagree, it's a poetic construction, possibly a bit dated, and so the other commenter pointed out, probably more UK English than US English.
You don't have to be familiar with it. But there's a kind of closed-minded arrogance to reading such an otherwise well-written piece and concluding "is it me that doesn't know this particular turn of phrase? No, it must be nonsense!"
I mean the dictionaries don't now it, and google doesn't know it. Also what about your arrogance, just because you've heard it, it doesn't mean that it's correct. I've heard a lot of things that are considered broken English.
The irony of you accusing them of arrogance while you refuse to accept an English speaker’s description of how their own language is used - while commenting on an article about fascism and genocide and the erasure of culture - is just -
Collins and Cambridge don't know about it (despite Cambridge having one of the best and largest corpus of spoken and written English). Thefreedictionary I don't accept as reliable.
But it does use the word "fix" in the sense of "fasten upon, stop moving, make immobile" like a "fixed point" and not in the sense of "repair" or "make breakfast",
And does so in relation to "gaze" in the same sentence. How much more do you need - the rest seems nit-picking. Sentences aren't all fixed forms, they are creative combinations of words. (and as has been established, this form is not actually unique)
If you don't want to engage with the piece, then maybe it's not for you. Not everything is written for everyone, and it's useless to complain about that.
A dictionary doesn’t capture the entire language. In this thread there are native speakers saying that this is a well formed, meaningful English sentence. Therefore it is.
Sure, you and the other guy, claiming London in his bio (we don't know if he's a native speaker or not).
It might be a regional dialect, which is also a form of broken English, especially if it is very obscure and other English speakers can't even guess the meaning of the idiom out of context.
a) it isn't - it might be archaic and poetic, but I don't view it as "regional"
> a regional dialect is also a form of broken English
Wrong! That's not how it works.
As the sibling comment says, what do you want? To understand the piece, improve your vocabulary or to tell the writer that they're Englishing wrong because "The Critic - Britain's Most Civilised Magazine", is using a turn of phrase that's not well known in your neck 'o the woods? I doubt that they care about that.
Well no, but I get tired of using the literary British voice after a while and I want to mix it up, demonstrate bending the rules, annoy the purists, épater le bourgeois, etc.
If you're trying to understand the original article I think you have enough information.
If you want to expand your understanding of English then you have some leads to follow and an opportunity to learn. If you don't believe them that's your choice, but it's not evidence to the contrary.
If you're trying to gate-keep and prescribe someone else's language, then you should at least respect if others don't want to join your argument.
(EDIT - Here's a past exam paper published by Cambridge that references such a phrase on page 16
I don't try to accomplish here anything. I expressed my opinion that I don't think that particular phrase is poetic, it is just broken without being poetic. Then people tried to prove that it is indeed an existing English idiom, which is usually very easy, they are in the dictionaries, in the books, in the articles, on the internet. Then they failed during this process, which made me more confident in my opinion.
> Then people tried to prove that it is indeed an existing English idiom ... Then they failed during this process, which made me more confident in my opinion.
This is a very arrogant statement.
...
> Okay, I can accept this.
LOL. And indeed LMAO.
This method is producing poor results for you, maybe re-evaluate it?
Whoa. I don't remeber an internet stranger making me _this_ angry in a while. IMO I made a perfectly valid argument overall, expressing my _unfamilirity_ with the usage, then meaningfully engaging with all the cited proofs, spending my time refuting them, then, when confronted with a good one, I concluded that I was indeed unfamiliar.
And after all this is over, the next day you come after me, lie, and shit talk me.
I guess the reason that you come after me is that you feel that here's an opportunity to shittalk someone. (Which you tenchically can, even tho all of your points are wrong, or straigt up lies.)
Have you ever wondered why do you feel the need to do this?
edit: omfg I don't have time for this. In your other comment you wrote
> ... arrogant ... entitled ... fixed mindset ... Whatever it is, it's best viewed at a distance, like car crash.
Can I ask you to take your own advice, and kindly fuck off? (Including not talking to me, and not shittalking me in other threads.)
Let's put this to bed once and for all. The sentence under discussion is:
> A woman in her forties sits on a bench, fixing the shrine with her gaze.
The construction in this sentence is perfectly standard in both British and American English, documented by reputable dictionaries, and in common usage across contexts from tabloids and young adult fantasy to newspapers of record and literary fiction.
Dictionaries: Several commenters have posted dictionary entries for related but distinct constructions like "fix a gaze on." Here are entries supporting the exact construction under discussion.
4. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fix#Verb, definition 1.1: "(Of a piercing look) to direct at someone." (note that definition 1, but not 1.1, is marked as obsolete)
- "He fixed me with a sickly grin, and said, 'I told you it wouldn't work!'"
- "She sniffed, too, comprehendingly, and fixed her son with a relentless eye."
- Footage shows the Government’s deputy chief whip Christopher Pincher fixing the Speaker with a firm stare before calling him a “bully” three times after he lectured Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom over procedure. (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8158041/government-whip-caught...)
- "Peskov was chatting over coffee here in Sochi with a few reporters, and he fixed them with a true-believer gaze as he described the Russia that will be revealed — especially to Americans viewing the world through Cold War-frosted glasses — as the flags are raised for the Opening Ceremonies on Feb. 7, 2014." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-expects-o...)
- After setting the tone for their set with explosive performances of "Brenden Lechner" and "Moldy Cannoli" while wrapping the mike around his neck like a young Iggy Pop while fixing the crowd with a confrontational blank stare, Robbie Pfeffer announced, "We are Playboy Manbaby. Not to be confused with the drum circle." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/03/2...)
Thank you, I respect the effort put into this. The free time and skills that I did not have.
I'm at this point more interested the Psychology of the readers who insisted "I don't know the phrase, and drew a blank, therefor it's wrong, broken, bad writing, how dare they not write for me". And refuse to listen to the contrary, indeed "refute" it (hah).
It's something - entitled? Arrogant? Leaning into ignorance? Fixed mindset? Whatever it is, it's best viewed at a distance, like car crash.
> I'm at this more interested the Psychology of the readers
Sure.
In my head it looked like this:
"I don't think this is an idiom" (meaning that either it is not an idiom or I am unfamiliar)
"I am an authority on English, and it is an idiom"
"Nah."
"Here are the dictionaries"
"It is not in the dictionaries"
"Google it"
"That's lazy, but sure. It is not on the internet"
"Here, it is in a pdf used in education"
"Fine"
I don't think that I am the arrogant or entitled one here. Also I don't understand why are you coming after me after this concluded. This, and your other comment. I very much don't like it.
No, it is not. You are merely unfamiliar with this sentence construction.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fix-a-g...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/fix-one-s-gaze
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/fix+his+with+a+gaze