Long sentences are balancing acts, and if they’re badly constructed, they can certainly lose the reader
As an exercise to examine the contrast between sensible long-form composition and obfuscative extemporaneity passing as a superlative command of subject matter, I wrote this some time back, entitled:
My new theory that explains everything about everything
As within an overarching framework of conflicting ramifications, the mundane versus the extraordinary are by nature both self-explanatory and self-deniable.
However, given the massive disbursement beyond which little else may escape notice, in a quintessential display nevertheless, obfuscation and observation may easily become confused, beyond the obvious and fully obtainable. When applied to various scenarios, the beginning, middle and end of which being most certainly in existence, the final analysis as a necessary component of the guesswork and speculation involved may become beyond comprehension, if only to the uninitiated. And if so, the esoteric minutiae as distinct from the anachronistic arcana, are revealed as each a portion of the other, but only in the presence of either both or neither. Upon careful examination and absent prejudicial conclusiveness, one may conclude that both, each, and all are, though may as well not be, otherwise.
Moreover, as postulatively corroborated in both the empirical and the evidentiary sense, either is as straightforward as neither, depending. Absent confirming or validating irregularity of note, for the remainder of which is intensified at cross-purposed factors, entire disciplines can or will, having little bearing on necessity and/or convenience of outcomes, find in themselves and beyond each of the others inclusively but not respectively or in part severally, but without an essential bifurcative imprimatur.
Which, of course, necessitates the most rigorous of inertial inflow as an essential beyond which neither is the case, if not both.
At least, this is what seems obvious to me.