Is this sentence grammatically correct?

What use in the sentence is ” form of”?

Second one better.

I’m curious. Do you believe that shows which draw from various eras of history are the epitome of comprehensive entertainment?

I like #2 better.

If I may suggest:
“Shows at the Hastings Theatre draw from various eras of history for the epitome of comprehensive theatrical entertainment.”

Neither one passes my tests.

What is the context? a class assignment, marketing piece, history article? The purpose of the piece is a consideration in the style and degree of complexity you choose.

@Jeruba it is for a class assignment. Does the sentence not make sense?

@ibstubro is this sentence ok? “Shows at the Hastings Theatre draw from various eras of history, the epitome of comprehensive theatrical entertainment.” instead of “Shows at the Hastings Theatre draw from various eras of history FOR THE epitome of comprehensive theatrical entertainment.” because I think “for the” sounds a little weird?

“which is the epitome of a comprehensive form of entertainment”…This whole phrase is describe something. What is it describing? What, exactly, is the epitome of a comprehensive form of entertainment?

I prefer to eliminate the comma and use “for the”, @ZoeDecker.
I think it softens “epitome” and makes it more a suggestion than a claim or declaration. That the theater is providing the epitome of comprehensive theatrical entertainment is subjective, after all.

I don’t love either. I’m no expert, but shouldn’t the second choice have a semicolon rather than a comma mid sentence? @Jeruba would know.

My try: The shows at the Hastings Theatre are the epitome of a comprehensive form of entertainment drawing from various eras throughout history.

I think epitome might be overkill. I would use simpler wording I think. Also, comprehensive form of entertainment I’m just not sure about.

Another try: The shows at the Hastings Theatre draw from various eras throughout history providing a comprehensive assortment of entertainment.

I understand the sentence when you take @ibstubro‘s suggestion and use for after history.

“Shows at the Hastings Theatre draw from various eras of history for the epitome of a comprehensive form of entertainment.”

Just make sure that’s the idea you’re trying to convey.

Semicolon: no. The second portion of sentence 2 is not an independent clause.

The problem is that it’s not really anything. There is no noun for “epitome” to be in apposition to. Likewise, in sentence 1, there is no antecedent for “which.” The whole sentence needs rethinking.

This looks to me like one of those many cases where a grammatical problem is actually a symptom of a lack of clear thought. If the OP thinks through exactly what is the epitome of what here (including asking the question of whether a comprehensive form of entertainment can be epitomized at all), the grammar will probably sort itself out.

If I were the editor working with this writer, I would suggest starting by making very sure (a) that he or she has a clear notion of what “comprehensive form of entertainment” means and (b) that he or she has double-checked the dictionary definition of “epitome.”

I’m in 100% agreement with @Jeruba here. The writer needs to be clear in his or her own mind exactly what idea should be conveyed. Clearly, the intent seems to be to communicate the high value of the entertainment being provided by the worthy establishment, based as it is in various historical eras (a better phrasing, I think, than “eras of history”, but that’s beside the point), and the classy nature of the entertainment being so based. (Because it’s also possible to base low, risque and bawdy entertainment in certain historical contexts, too, but clearly this establishment will brook no such nonsense! Harrumph!)

I doubt that the writer’s idea is that “history is the epitome of a comprehensive form of entertainment”, which is the impression that the sentence actually conveys. Although the notion is worth pursuing for its value as a potentially excellent parody of the value of much modern education, it’s not a “serious” statement worthy of credibility, and certainly not the writer’s intent.

As for the term “comprehensive form of entertainment”, it simply leaves one wondering, “Whatever could aspire to be that? A musical comedy-drama-tragedy-spy thriller-murder mystery movie-play with live actors, dance numbers, music videos and a ventriloquist, followed by some form of performance art, a Punch and Judy show and live concert? Where would the comedian fit in?”

Don’t aspire to things you can’t even define, because you cannot deliver them.

What exactly does “comprehensive entertainment” consist of?

The sentence is meaningless no matter how good the punctuation, if no one understands what you’re talking about.

It sounds too much like the OP looked up words in a thesaurus and is trying too hard to make it sound fancy schmancy, and it isn’t working well.

“Is this sentence grammatically correct?”

Semantic satiation is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

@JLeslie, that certainly does happen. I see it even in mainstream fiction published by well-known houses.

Another thing that can account for strange constructions and lack of sense is trying to avoid plagiarism by paraphrasing something. If the writer doesn’t fully comprehend the statement to begin with, he or she may not be able to restate it grammatically. Then what seemed like a shortcut becomes an obstacle instead.

Some more clarifying questions, if that’s all right? Hopefully I am wording these questions clearly enough to get at the distinctions I’m trying to describe… I was going to offer different phrasings based on what I thought “comprehensive form of entertainment” might mean, to see if one is what you are trying to say. I agree with others—I find its meaning a little obscure. So I began rephrasing, and (at least for me) I felt some ambiguity in the first part of the sentence, too:

- Does each show at Hastings Theatre incorporate aspects from different historical eras? (As in, does each show “draw from various eras of history”?) Or is each performance based on a specific era, and it’s the theatre that “draw[s] from various eras” when it compiles a performance season?
– Were the shows written in different eras? Or are they contemporary creations set in the past? Or are they contemporary shows that pull from historical inspiration/tradition/form/style?

Some attempts of mine at rephrasing. I may or may not be getting at what you mean… sorry if I’m misunderstanding/misinterpreting! I left blank spaces because I didn’t want to assume too much of your argument/point. And these sentences can use revision too, I just thought I’d try some new phrasing to see how much of your point I was getting—

Perhaps: “Hastings Theatre presents shows from various historical eras, rather than limiting its range to a single time period. Such breadth of material provides audiences with ____________________________.”

Or: “Shows at the Hastings Theatre incorporate _____________ [artistic elements/techniques/themes/traditions?] from many different historical eras, a performance style which provides audiences with _______________________.”

I suggest this:

“Shows at the Hastings Theatre draw from various eras of history.”

The problem with the sentence is not grammar but meaning. What is a comprehensive form of entertainment? How does drawing from various periods of history make shows more comprehensive?

Replace the comma with a period and get rid of the confusing clause. Then explain how the shows draw on different historical periods.