Beautiful old illustrations but I find the authors writing style off putting and garden path at best. Almost every sentence is a run on, I struggle to find a si

Beautiful old illustrations but I find the authors writing style off putting and garden path at best. Almost every sentence is a run on, I struggle to find a single sentence in the entire thing lacking either a comma or hyphenated sub-thought. The sentences are impenetrably long and in dire need of a skilled editor. What follows is a single sentence. > Like many other women naturalists in the second half of the nineteenth century, Lewis appears to have collected and illustrated specimens for her own edification, combining her “polite” training in the arts with meticulous scientific observation against the backdrop of a growing embrace of natural history’s wonders. Beyond that, it’s own claims are unbacked. Over and over it cites the current zeitgeist being obsessed with Fungi but cites nothing, and nothing in my life experience backs that claim. Back it up with something, anything. > mushrooms have represented something queer, sexy, and dark for centuries Citation needed. I have never heard of mushrooms as sexy - back it up, > Behind recent calls for fungal futures — involving everything from “biohacked” bodies to anti-capitalist visions What? Reword, cite or omit > It’s unclear whether today’s obsession with fungi […] is another fleeting trend or a longer embrace of our primordial ancestors How am I meant to interpret this? Am I to interpret that final “of” as “akin to that of”? That’s the only way I can even make that thought make any kind of sense. The whole thing reads like some kind of fever dream.