Need help with this sentence please

Comma after jewelry is not needed.

It is grammatically correct but a little awkward.

Punk you raise a very interesting q. I've always felt a comma is needed there to dispel the inference of a connection. But Ccgfg,

. ...leaves one dangling to some extent. We suppose for instance, that if you're referring to a specific set of such objects, then "Amidst the…"

And of course I don't know the circumstances but it's not clear if or how the kids are hidden. Thus, eg,

If you look closely, in the background but in black-and-white you will note amidst the brilliantly hued mannequins, jewelry, and fabrics a little boy and girl--making my life (paradoxically, perhaps) just a little more colorful

I've always been on that side of the Oxford comma debate as well.

The sentence is not incorrect the way it is, but it is awkward. Starting the sentence with 'There amidst the..." sounds a bit better to me, but that's just personal preference.

Thank you Stud, a little support is refreshing of a morning in this otherwise procrustean diriment, this hermeneutic causeway of dysphoric miasma

Me too

But a connection is exactly what is being explicitly declared. The things listed are members of a collection of things amidst which are a little boy and girl.

In my pocket are a pen, a cigarette lighter and a comb. They are connected (if that is even relevant) firstly and trivially by being members of a list, by being members of the set of objects which are in my pocket, and also by being simultaneously contemplated by me.

But the absence of a comma seems to imply a closer connection between jewelry and fabrics than between mannequins and jewelry

I agree that the use of a serial comma can help to avoid certain kinds of ambiguity, e.g. "I am grateful for my success in life to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." However, I do not see that the sentence used as an example at the beginning of the thread is capable of such an ambiguous interpretation.

To the contrary, Con, the instant reaction of many if not most--even if only for tens of milliseconds--is, "What does jewelry have to do with fabrics"

Well, the instant reaction of many people is going to be "Plenty". Both are decorative and are often found together in clothing, fashion accessories, arts and crafts, etc. They are natural partners. Throw some mannequins in (whether in the old sense now contained in the phrase "(human) fashion model" or the alternative "fashion store dummy") and you have a bunch of stuff that fits very well together.

Sorry Con if I wasn't clear. The inference was that somehow jewelry and fabrics possess a closer relationship than mannequins and jewelry

Somebody help me, I can't seem to convey the exact meaning I intend. Old age probably