Sentence of the Day.

Get you diagramming pencil sharpened!

This is from "Ron Galella’s Relentless Gaze/The photographer’s work provides a stark illustration of the hold that celebrity has on our culture" by Naomi Fry in The New Yorker (Note: Galella died recently. Lots of Galella photos of celebs at the link):

The photographer sought to catch celebrities with their masks lowered and their auras punctured, but the paradox that animates his best photos is that, whether camera-ready or not, the stars he shot couldn’t help but magnetize—whether thanks to the ineffable glow of fame or, simply, because Galella captured them, a circumstance that created its own kind of intimate halo.

 Here, I'll get you started:

 

That's the easy part, though. We all lose interest after that — don't we? — except hypothetically. You see all those phrases. You wonder how big of a piece of paper you'd need to hang them wherever they belong.

But what about the meaning? And let's not isolate form and meaning, because the question always is — with these sentences of the day — whether the length and complexity are justified. Is there something wonderful that rewards the diligent reader? 

I'm a little skeptical because of the use of "auras" near the beginning and then — near the end — a return to the idea of auras but with different words: "glow of fame" and "intimate halo." 

It may be a humdrum fear of the "second mention," but maybe the author really built something worthy. The idea is that Galella meant to puncture the aura, but they kept their aura. My skepticism is taking over now. 

Everything depends on whether there really is a paradox! A man meant to do something and it didn't work out. He meant to drag the celebrities down to earth, but they're so superhuman that catching them being ordinary makes that seem all the more special. They incandesce! Okay, I'm going to approve.