"It was the stillness of an implacable force brooding over an inscrutable intention"
Please help!
Please help!
I don't understand this sentence at all
Its kind of intentionally wordy and heavy-handed sentence. The meaning is something like the tension between something that can't be pleased with something that can not be known or understood. It is not a good sentence, but probably just someone trying to show off their vocabulary.
Are we supposed to be impressed that that's Joseph Conrad? The sentence is barely understandable, and even to the extent you do understand it, you have to sit there and contemplate it first. Very clunky sentence, and unnecessarily wordy.
Also, G, just by talking like that you reveal yourself to be a low-class barbarian who is worthy neither to judge aesthetics, nor to be listened to in the first place. If you want to be taken seriously by educated people, you have to grow up and leave your low-class roots behind.
Also, G, just by talking like that you reveal yourself to be a low-class barbarian who is worthy neither to judge aesthetics, nor to be listened to in the first place. If you want to be taken seriously by educated people, you have to grow up and leave your low-class roots behind.
Swearing has always been a prerogative and a pastime of the upper-class, I’ll have you know! That you're too dense too understand and too obstinate to try and understand does not diminish Conrad's status as one of the greatest English novelists.
<It is not a good sentence, but probably just someone trying to show off their vocabulary. >
Silly girl.
<Very clunky sentence, and unnecessarily wordy. >
Silly boy.
<Please help!>
an implacable force - ruthless power which cannot be appeased
brooding over - thinking long and hard and sombrely about
an inscrutable intention - an intention you can't guess
<The sentence is barely understandable, and even to the extent you do understand it, you have to sit there and contemplate it first.>
A just complaint, if all you want is baby food. But sometimes, when you read books for older readers, you have to brood over the implacable force of an inscrutable intention.
Silly girl.
<Very clunky sentence, and unnecessarily wordy. >
Silly boy.
<Please help!>
an implacable force - ruthless power which cannot be appeased
brooding over - thinking long and hard and sombrely about
an inscrutable intention - an intention you can't guess
<The sentence is barely understandable, and even to the extent you do understand it, you have to sit there and contemplate it first.>
A just complaint, if all you want is baby food. But sometimes, when you read books for older readers, you have to brood over the implacable force of an inscrutable intention.
How is that sentence "barely understandable"? Do you people seriously think that? Are you seriously native speakers? That is a COMPLETELY ORDINARY sentence that you'll find by the HUNDREDS in ANY slightly more intelligent book...
I am shocked! Maybe you're just trying to comfort an ESLer for not being able to understand it? DON'T! If you want to master English, you MUST understand that sentence!
I am shocked! Maybe you're just trying to comfort an ESLer for not being able to understand it? DON'T! If you want to master English, you MUST understand that sentence!
<Are you seriously native speakers?>
The incomprehension proves it, does it not, friend Blah?
Only native speakers may be permitted the luxury of not understanding their own language.
The incomprehension proves it, does it not, friend Blah?
Only native speakers may be permitted the luxury of not understanding their own language.
Now that low-class people like "G" have been joined by even lower-class vulgar perverts like Edward "Teach," I am going to leave what could have been an intelligent conversation.
I guess that's what happens when you have a forum open to everyody -- the lowest elements of society are given a voice, and the cultured people leave.
By the way Edward Teach -- you call me snobby, only because the obvious contrast between someone moral and true such as I, convicts you of your own low and dirty estate. You are gross. You are nothing like me, and gave up the ability to be, years ago in your life.
(By the way, for any real intellectuals here, I am aware that Joseph Conrad is esteemed a great writer. I'm not disagreeing with that. But the sentence in question is by no means "ordinary," and since it could have been written to convey its meaning more clearly and consisely, it is clunky. It's almost obtuse. Some people who can't think for themselves, look up to these "great" people as if they could do no wrong, and as if we "commoners" could not have a differing opinion. How ridiculous. They're the same people who label certain modern art as "good," just because a gallery, or a professor, or a magazine told them so. When you challenge them on WHAT makes it good, they can't answer and just get angry. Joseph Conrad was a great writer. But no one is perfect, and that includes him.)
I guess that's what happens when you have a forum open to everyody -- the lowest elements of society are given a voice, and the cultured people leave.
By the way Edward Teach -- you call me snobby, only because the obvious contrast between someone moral and true such as I, convicts you of your own low and dirty estate. You are gross. You are nothing like me, and gave up the ability to be, years ago in your life.
(By the way, for any real intellectuals here, I am aware that Joseph Conrad is esteemed a great writer. I'm not disagreeing with that. But the sentence in question is by no means "ordinary," and since it could have been written to convey its meaning more clearly and consisely, it is clunky. It's almost obtuse. Some people who can't think for themselves, look up to these "great" people as if they could do no wrong, and as if we "commoners" could not have a differing opinion. How ridiculous. They're the same people who label certain modern art as "good," just because a gallery, or a professor, or a magazine told them so. When you challenge them on WHAT makes it good, they can't answer and just get angry. Joseph Conrad was a great writer. But no one is perfect, and that includes him.)
<<But the sentence in question is by no means "ordinary," and since it could have been written to convey its meaning more clearly and consisely, it is clunky.>>
It may not be an ordinary speech in everyday language, but it IS an ordinary sentence in literary language. If it looks at all odd, it is because it is out of context. In a book one would not find it strange.
And since when were clearness and conciseness prerequisites in literary language? What about artistic use of language? In fact, that metaphor is so skilful that I find it impossible to express it in weak language, the metaphor is required, a must, irreplaceable.
It may not be an ordinary speech in everyday language, but it IS an ordinary sentence in literary language. If it looks at all odd, it is because it is out of context. In a book one would not find it strange.
And since when were clearness and conciseness prerequisites in literary language? What about artistic use of language? In fact, that metaphor is so skilful that I find it impossible to express it in weak language, the metaphor is required, a must, irreplaceable.
<since it could have been written to convey its meaning more clearly and consisely, it is clunky. It's almost obtuse. Some people who can't think for themselves, look up to these "great" people as if they could do no wrong, and as if we "commoners" could not have a differing opinion. How ridiculous. They're the same people who label certain modern art as "good," just because a gallery, or a professor, or a magazine told them so. When you challenge them on WHAT makes it good, they can't answer and just get angry. Joseph Conrad was a great writer. But no one is perfect, and that includes him.>
Your reasonings are interesting, my friend:
A. Some people label some paintings good, on someone else's authority.
B. Those who disagree with you in this thread are the same people as in A.
C. Therefore they are wrong about Conrad's sentence.
And:
A1. Joseph Conrad was a great writer.
B1. No one is perfect.
C1. Therefore Joseph Conrad is not perfect.
D1. Therefore this is an example of imperfect writing.
And:
A2. You "barely" understand the sentence.
B2. Things which you "barely" understand could have been written more clearly.
C2. Therefore the sentence could have been written more clearly.
D2. Therefore the sentence is badly written.
__________________________
But let me suggest:
A3. You barely understand the sentence.
B3. You cannot sensibly judge that which you barely understand.
C3. Therefore it is sensible for you not to judge the sentence.
Your reasonings are interesting, my friend:
A. Some people label some paintings good, on someone else's authority.
B. Those who disagree with you in this thread are the same people as in A.
C. Therefore they are wrong about Conrad's sentence.
And:
A1. Joseph Conrad was a great writer.
B1. No one is perfect.
C1. Therefore Joseph Conrad is not perfect.
D1. Therefore this is an example of imperfect writing.
And:
A2. You "barely" understand the sentence.
B2. Things which you "barely" understand could have been written more clearly.
C2. Therefore the sentence could have been written more clearly.
D2. Therefore the sentence is badly written.
__________________________
But let me suggest:
A3. You barely understand the sentence.
B3. You cannot sensibly judge that which you barely understand.
C3. Therefore it is sensible for you not to judge the sentence.