It is indeed entertaining. There is, to be sure, no shortage of hedges, like “considerable success.” And even the weekend aficianado of “This Old House” can appreciate such nicely turned table legs like “revenues commensurate with its quality.” With a nice coat of varnish, it’ll look splendid in the living room.

But don’t misunderstand me. Hedges are essential to academic prose. But too many hedges transform what was an initial irritation into an outright rash — um, yes, I tend to think metaphorically, what with the table legs and rashes.

Walker Gibson, in Tough, Sweet, and Stuffy: An Essay on Modern American Prose Styles,” defines the third category of this triad as the “rhetoric of hollow men.” He writes that “we feel a disparity between the simplicity of the situation, as we feel it ought to be defined, and the pretentiousness of the lingo” (97). I’m not sure if that accurately describes Lemann’s prose here, but it sketches an outline, I believe.

Your summary is perfect, by the way, but both you and I know that it would be unlikely in that situation for Lemann to use such blunt language. It was face-saving time and nothing works like a bit of “smoke and mirrors.”

I wonder if he’s the one really driving this, using the old Nation strategy. Lemann seems to be eager to share the “credit” – and thereby hedge any future blame.