[jshevek]

Thank you for responding and clarifying. I thought you took issue (and maybe you do...) with a dozen other terms used in the text - terms which some readers might need to look up, but which have a specific, nuanced meaning that is lost if a more common word is used. I'm biased in the authors favor because I've been accused of trying to show off my vocab (such as it is, lol) when all I'm trying to do is say what I really mean.

As for that first sentence, I agree that your version is more clear, more accessible, but I also think that there is meaning lost. The author seems to want to draw attention to the clash of cultural values. This isn't conveyed so well in this more accessible version.

On another axis, his version evokes more powerful imagery and feelings. These words: 'alienating infrastrcuture, controlled, provoked, nettle, thrill, transgressing. 'value the principle' all have much larger emotional, visual, even tactile impact on me than the most emotional words in the other version.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, only that this may have been the authors goal (more so than showing off their vocab). The author may also consciously value (a) emotional/visual impact on those who bother to read over (b) making the work easy for a larger body of people to read.