Was going to comment this. Are there any great examples in all of literature where a period would not have been a good replacement fora semicolon?
As a side note, I am only a little offended by the idea that fiction writers should use semicolons to make their writing more literate or fancy. But I think simple writing is always better, even when you are trying to convey beauty. I believe great flowery literature is great in spite of the floweriness, not because of it.
Asking for a "great example" of punctuation use - any punctuation - is to miss the point, which is to smooth the reader's understanding of the text in the way that inflection and cadence are used in speech. As another commenter pointed out, well-used punctuation should be invisible. Only in its absence can it be properly appreciated.
Understanding language is not a strictly linear, one-word-after-another process, and these non-lexical clues all help us converge quickly on the intended meaning.
There have been several suggestions as to what might be just as good as a semicolon, but the period is a new one to me, and I strongly suspect that there are many cases where this substitution would interrupt a reader's flow. Given the importance, semantically, of the sentence, there are probably cases where this would corrupt the meaning.
I agree with most of what you said, but not that you shouldn't be able to find a good example. If the only good time for it is when it doesn't matter, that sounds like the worst and most pretentious parts of literature.
It is not clear to me how you could interpret my reply as being an admission that "the only good time for it is when it doesn't matter" - my claim is something quite different, that it makes a difference in a way that does not lead to great examples. Are there great examples, as you put it, of the use of the comma? If not, should we conclude that it doesn't matter and should be replaced with something else? A period, perhaps, as you say should replace the semicolon?
I will admit, however, that I doubt a misunderstanding of this magnitude could be fixed by punctuation.
Given the viewpoint expressed by the last sentence in my original reply, I have little doubt there are examples where replacing a semicolon with a period could alter the meaning of an expression, but I am just not motivated enough to go look for one.
If, as your final sentence suggests, you feel that semicolons are characteristic of "the worst and most pretentious parts of literature", then I have bad news about just how pretentious writing can get. Writing that badly misuses semicolons might be the work of a pretentious author, but it is mainly just bad writing.
Ultimately, however, I think the semicolon will disappear: if one's readership finds it strange and it interrupts their flow, then it is counter-productive. I do not, however, think this would mean it was a bad idea; its demise will be just a consequence of the ever-shifting norm of usage in language. Furthermore, the substitution of other punctuation for the semicolon, as noted in the article, suggests that it had a purpose that remains to be satisfied one way or another.
As a side note, I am only a little offended by the idea that fiction writers should use semicolons to make their writing more literate or fancy. But I think simple writing is always better, even when you are trying to convey beauty. I believe great flowery literature is great in spite of the floweriness, not because of it.