She hadn't been successful for so long in a career that wasn't know for it's longevity by acting in a stupid manner. "Just because she was strong, it didn’t mean she was going to go down into the basement while she was home alone to investigate the thing that had gone bump in the middle of the night. Because that was plain stupid. And she hadn’t had longevity in a career that wasn’t known for it by being stupid. Strength also lay in knowing your limitations and accepting help." There is no problem with commas. Often we use too many. Obviously, "that was plain stupid" refers to going down into the basement alone to investigate the noise. The next sentence: IT refers to longevity. "that wasn't known for it" modifies career "by being stupid" refers to "she" She hadn't been successful for so long in a career that wasn't know for it's longevity by acting in a stupid manner. I would say that Harlequin novels are not known for having the best or clearest writing. You would probably have to read something else for that. Just about anything else...

"Because that was plain stupid. And she hadn't had longevity in a career that wasn't known for it by being stupid." That was plainly stupid, according to her. She hadn't yet had longevity in a career that wasn't known for it's stupidity. Does that help you to understand this sentence better? I hope that helps you.

'it' is referring to something that's not in those two sentences. we need context.

Why couldn't she just say "And she hadn't had longivity in her career by being stupid."? -- Yes! The author or the editor should have made that decision... It's a poor piece of writing.

I've read and re-read the excerpt...and I've got nothing. Sorry.