It would be interesting to see a heat map for reading an article like this.
It’s so long.. after 10 minutes I wanted to know the point of it, so I skipped aggressively to the middle, found a few points, then skipped to the end.
I wonder if there’s any value to so many words in this day and age with so many other things to read on the internet.
Every time a New Yorker article shows up, people crawl out of the woodwork to complain that it's a New Yorker article.
If New Yorker articles are not for you, then do not try to read New Yorker articles. Really! Read other things you will actually like. If you want a quick rundown of the topic, Wikipedia is only a click away, and gets right to the point.
Those of us who like New Yorker articles appreciate them when they appear. We know there will be an investment of time, and we know that a board of Editors has ensured that, for those of us who like the format, our time will not be wasted. Those who don't, know in advance that they will just be frustrated and bored, and can skip past instead. You are not even obliged to "upvote" the post.
Really, nobody is keeping track. Nobody will think ill of you for skipping past the moment you notice "New Yorker" in the URL. If you ever become ready for New Yorker articles, New Yorker articles will be there for you.
When you post an article, what sort of discussion are you hoping people will hold?
If you are hoping that people will discuss the novel aspects of the coronavirus's impact on the immune system then you might choose an article that focuses on that.
Instead, if you choose an article that spends a large amount of time discussing tangential points, creating lengthy analogies for the workings of the immune system and discussing other forms of immune response then probably you are hoping people will discuss those too.
But people will appreciate as well as criticise. That there are people who appreciate the analogies are apparent in the discussion here where people do just that. That there are people who would prefer a focused article and find that the tangents detract from the underlying store is just the flip side of that discussion that the op decided to have.
I personally wish that long form journalist articles would have an outline at the beginning so that I know what I am about to read. Otherwise it often just feels like the author is rambling and going nowhere. Some stories actually have a lot of moving parts and require long form journalism to paint a realistic and balanced picture. Instead, a lot of "long form" journalism just adds filler analogies and tangential factoids that may be interesting but often don't add anything to the underlying story or are unnecessary for understanding.
I can tell you what we don't hope to read: complaints about New Yorker editorial policy, or about long form journalism in general. Again: it has what it says on the tin. We get that you don't care for it. You are absolutely not obliged to post anything at all.
It’s so long.. after 10 minutes I wanted to know the point of it, so I skipped aggressively to the middle, found a few points, then skipped to the end.
I wonder if there’s any value to so many words in this day and age with so many other things to read on the internet.