It’s not writing intended for a textbook or academic paper. It’s a story. You’re supposed to read it and get introduced to things and discover the themes of the story gradually.
I see a variation of this criticism of a long form feature about every week or so on HN. It’s sort of equivalent to a person walking into a modern art museum and asking why the artists didn’t just paint the pictures so they look exactly like the thing the artist was looking at when he painted the picture.
What I object to is an article ostensibly on Topic A that spends the first 60% completely ignoring Topic A in favor of Topic B, only to draw the most fleeting and hand-wavy of analogies between the two, and subsequently pretending as if the author had presented some work of scholarship on Topic A.
"Until halfway through" was not an exaggeration in my original comment.
Only if you ignore the literal second paragraph:
>Even neurons are formed by habit. When continuously exposed to a fixed stimulus, neurons become steadily less sensitive to that stimulus—until they eventually stop responding to it altogether.
I didn't discover crap.
Lost my attention way before I skimmed over to the near-end where they started making the connection to exaggeration. Not because my attention span is that low but, rather, 99% of newspaper articles and columns are without much substance and I really need some assurance that the long story is worth reading.
But, generally, if I want a story I'll read a novel.
For anything else, give me the point. If the point is really good, you'll probably have me hooked for listening in for more.
If you want short form bare facts soulless prose, you shouldn't leave twitter
Because when we say X we don't just say X, we also signal and imply a lot of other things.
> That's rude.
Whereas the response "I didn't discover crap" is polite?
My comment is intended to point out the genre. The comments on this article are like people complaining that rap music doesn’t have enough melody, or jazz music isn’t catchy enough, or whatever.
It’s an unwillingness to understand the concept. Some of us are pretty damn glad The Atlantic, Harpers, and The New Yorker, among others, are still around. The world isn’t running short of thinly narrated to-the-point content.
From the fine article:
"This piece was adapted from James Geary’s new book, Wit’s End: What Wit Is, How It Works, and Why We Need It."
Seen under that light, the article works perfectly. It contains a headline with seemingly simple question, meanders along with some anecdotes, and then at the end -- if you're still reading -- it tells you that you can go buy the book if you want to know the answer.
First rule of good writing: Start the story as late as you can get away with. Preferably right before the punchline.
Compare:
1) I woke up that morning, showered, put on my shoes, and went on a hike. It was a beautiful day the sun was shining the bees were buzzing. I walked for 30 minutes when I happened upon a bear in the road.
2) Shit, is that a bear!? I was on a hike in the Rocky mountains in the middle of nowhere and there’s this bear rught in front of me. Now what do i do?
Ok I’m not doing these examples justice but think of your favorite stories: Do they start with the action or with the long wind up? In modern storytelling the windup usually comes during/after the action as backstory.
A counter example are horror movies and thrillers where you want to build suspense first.
Unless you want to bring the reader along for the ride of discovery.
That's the point of long form story telling in the Atlantic. Sometimes it is well done, this isn't a good example of it (the ride isn't worth it).