0

Consider:

You might be primarily concerned with what these books were as works of art, with evaluating their fusions of form and content.

I can't understand this sentence, especially the structure of it. Please explain this in detail.

Improve this question
2
  • It is a courtesy to your readers to use standard orthography and formatting. Making your question easier to read will make people more willing to make the effort to compose an answer.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Nov 30, 2014 at 16:39
  • I'll agree that understanding that sentence is a definite challenge. The author was being a bit ostentatious, I would say.
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Nov 30, 2014 at 21:43

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
4

The structure may be depicted thus:

You might be primarily concerned with what these books were as works of art, 
                                 with evaluating their fusions of form and content.

The second with clause is apposed to the first, identifying it as a redefinition of the first. (Note that with is repeated: a signal that it shares the same 'front end' as the previous clause: "You might be primarily concerned with evaluating their fusions of form and content".) Understanding "what the books were as works of art" is roughly equivalent to "evaluating their fusions of form and content."

It has been for many generations a commonplace of literary criticism that the 'form' of a work of literary art—its genre, style, diction and so forth—cannot be usefully distinguished from its 'content'—the events it narrates and the philosophy it maintains. If a work is successful as art, its content cannot be paraphrased: the content is discernible only through the form, and the form is entirely expressive of the content. Form and content are 'fused' into a single inseparable entity.

Consequently, discerning what a book is as a work of art amounts to judging (evaluating) how successfully it has 'fused' form and content.

Improve this answer
1

You might be primarily concerned with what these books were as works of art, (you might be primarily concerned) with evaluating their fusions of form and content.

Your main interest in these books might be as works of art, in the way they have fused form and content.

Or you might be interested in the way they depict daily life in 17th century Madrid, say.

Improve this answer
1

I believe that this sentence could be rewritten to say: With your evaluation of the books' fusions of form and content, you might be considering them mainly as works of art.

So to break the sentence down:

  • You might be primarily concerned: The subjunctive "might" here indicates possibility; also I believe that there is a sense of a current state of being, so one could use a present active participle here. The writer seems to be saying that you might be paying attention mainly to...
  • with what these books were as art: This can be interpreted as the books as forms of art
  • with evaluating their fusions of form and content: This part is probably the most muddled--what goes with "with"? You, perhaps? I believe that "evaluating" was intended to be a gerund and is used as a noun here. So this part could be rewritten as with your evaluation of their fusions of form and content.
Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    No; the with here echoes the with of the preceding PP and shares its precedents: You are concerned with A, with B.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Nov 30, 2014 at 16:37
1

Break the sentence down into its various parts, and separate the independent and dependent phrases from one another. Then, analyze the logic of each expression and how one phrase relates to another. I'll restructure the example and try to make it more comprehensible for you:

You might be primarily concerned with what these books were as works of art.'

(The above is a full sentence, complete with subject and verb. It is able to stand, independently, from the other dependent and extraneous thoughts in the more detailed sentence complex.)

, with evaluating their fusions of form and content.

(This adverbial phrase simply expands the original complete thought. It explains, 'how' the direct object of the sentence (books) might be additionally considered. It is a dependent phrase, because it is unable to stand alone and, still, make sense.)

I can't understand this sentence, especially the structure of it. Please explain this in detail.

I believe you when you say you are confused! This sentence is your own, and does not belong as part of the original thought (paragraph). Your bigger problem appears to be with the proper expression of literary thoughts, and grammatical logic.

You're lumping everything together; and, then, going back and trying to sort it all out. A clearer understanding of how literary thoughts should be presented, how sentences are formed, as well as what logical elements sentences are comprised of would help you to better see the logical meaning that's presently evading you.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.