For the same reason Hemingway, Tolstoy and Faulkner write differently. The original text is only applicable when both are viewed positively. Your sentence applies when it's the less crappy of two options.

I wouldn't compare the work of Hemingway, Tolstoy, or Faulkner to that sentence.

Seriously. That's like comparing a Picasso, a van Gogh, or a da Vinci to something you find on a bathroom stall in some dive bar.

Unless it's Banksy's art in that bathroom stall.

In which case it would be long gone anyways

Hemingway's style is much more simple than Tolstoy - no doubt he would decry the flowery, unnecessary language of the KP partner. Can't speak for Faulkner but this guy is trying to emulate Dostoevsky

I think it's for the purposes of rhetoric, with emphasis cast on "the next new thing" by its repetition, and some vague attempt at an ascending tricolon (maybe) with discover/invest/build. It reads quite clunkily but it would probably sound a bit better spoken at a lectern. (Actually, if you drop "get my hands dirty and" it just flows much better generally - I think that's the biggest problem with this sentence.)