A question about style and grammar

I’m asking for some audience participation here. I’m reading a book right now called The Beauty of the Infinite. It’s a pretty rigorous read, to be honest, although the author has some stimulating thoughts buried beneath his turgid prose. I’m going to post my thoughts on the book next week, but for now I’m curious about a certain sentence. This is, in essence, an aesthetic question directed at all those who feel sharp at grammar, writing, or English style. I’m looking at how style can itself be a form of rhetorical violence, and I think this sentence sort of gets at that.

So, what I’m asking is for you to unleash your inner editor. You know, the one that wants to point out every little grammar mistake or style distention, but have learned over the years that people get bent out of shape when corrected on what they see as minor points. But I want to hear it.

In other words, I want the part of you that reveled in Eats, Shoots, and Leaves to be let out on this following sentence. There are a lot of examples I could use, but I particularly liked this one because of the semicolon love that is shown. I tend to dismiss the semicolon altogether so maybe I’m a wee biased.

Here it is. Have at it, on anything that comes to mind. Don’t worry about understanding it, just get at the style and the grammar and all around English language usage (though, communicating in an understandable way is a part of that, so maybe you could add those thoughts too). It might also be that this is perfectly fine and acceptable, and my mind just doesn’t want to deal with the complexity of such a supposed master. Here is the, yes just one, sentence:

For all his solicitude for noble values, Nietzsche may prove, in retrospect, to have been the greatest of bourgeois philosophers: the active and creative force of will he praised may be really a mythic aggrandizement of entrepreneurial ingenuity and initiative; talk of the will to power, however abstracted and universalized, may reflect only a metaphysical inflation of that concept of voluntaristic punctiliarity that defines the “subject” to which the market is hospitable; the notion of a contentless and spontaneous activity that must create values describes, in a somewhat impressionistic vein, the monadic consumer of the free market and the venture capitalist; to speak of the innocence of all becoming, the absence of good and evil from being, and a general preference for the distinction between god and bad as a purely evaluative judgment is perhaps to speak of the guiltless desire of the consumer, the relativity of want, and that perpetual transvaluation that is so elegantly and poignantly expressed on every price tag, every declaration of a commodity’s abstract value; a force that goes always to the limit of what it can do is perhaps at one with modern capitalism’s myth of limitless growth and unbounded trade.

This entry was posted in missional. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to A question about style and grammar

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *