4 ms·

Wow, what a sprawling article. At first it seems Yes. I HATE reporting like this. I've got things to do with my life. I'd much rather they just get on with the

Wow, what a sprawling article. At first it seems Yes. I HATE reporting like this. I've got things to do with my life. I'd much rather they just get on with the information. If they feel there's some human interest necessary to understand the point, at least give me a summary up front, so I can decide if it's going to be interesting and worth the investment of time.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
There was a time when this was the way to write, to give depth to your readers. The New Yorker is a classic example of this writing style. It's for people who want to read, and have time to do it. Maybe 150 years ago, people had more time than they had material to read, so this style was perfect. But now there's so much more to read then there is time to read it in, and this style is a royal pain. Times have changed, and (some) writers haven't noticed. They're still writing like we have more time than we have stuff to read.
- hguant 11y ago
  Buzzfeed called; they've got a list for you. In all seriousness, this type of writing - sprawling as you call it - is important. It lets the reader come away with a sense of the nuances of the situation, instead of a bullet point abstract that leads to misunderstandings and overlooked issues. This type of writing - commonly called "the essay" - is important precisely because it does take time to read it. Its meant to teach you something, not just give you a little factoid you can regurgitate throughout the day.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Yes, you're very important and don't have time to read long articles. If you don't want to read long-form writing, then don't do so but don't complain about it being available to people who like it. I rather like the New Yorker.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    It's not that "I'm very important". It's not even that I don't have time to read a long article. I don't have time to read nearly as many long articles as there are out there, though. And to me, it feels like the shoe's on the other foot. To me, a long form article is the author deciding that he/she's so important (or the content is) that I will find it worth the time to read the whole thing, and that it's therefore fine to hide the main point somewhere in the length, because I'll get the point so much better if I go through all the rest of it as well. That's fine for those who like that kind of thing, but, well, let's just say that it's unattractive to more and more readers as we have more and more things that we want to read. For it to be worth my while, this article has to be worth more than whatever I didn't have time to read because I took the time to read this one. The longer the article is, the higher that bar is, because the more I could have read with the same time.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      I was unnecessarily snarky. However, this is a market-correcting thing. Yes, there is a trend toward shorter pieces, which has pluses and minuses. If I write long pieces that people don't read, I may shorten what I write. Or I may not, if I feel the greater length is justified. And if some choose not to read the longer piece, I'll probably be fine with that.
bubalus 11y ago
Agreed. I quite liked the level of detail in this article, but probably because I'm already interested in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. In general this rambling style is a complete turn-off for people who (1) aren't already familiar with the topic and (2) don't have 40 hours a week to spend reading. It boggles the mind how many supposedly tech-focused articles are pumped full of human interest fluff. For example, any article that starts with someone's physical description ("John Smith was hunched in front of his computer, his messy brown hair almost completely obscuring the screen.") is almost guaranteed to be of this ilk.
danso 11y ago
To be fair, I have a lot of time on my hands :). In defense of the OP, they are covering one of the oldest and most well-known engineering history lessons, not a new trend or news event. A lot of history we take as gospel gets summed up in glib paragraphs, so if someone is purporting to explain why something has been wrong for decades, I won't hold it against them if they take more than the usual amount of words to get there.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  But they aren't filling the article with useful facts or details. It's all intellectual popcorn. Mention that something big is coming up, then mention what the main engineer ate for breakfast, then pause to lament the fact that people often skip breakfast, and finally reach your big reveal. Then claim the fact that it rambles is proof of good writing.
  - mcnamaratw 11y ago
    Exactly. This particular article isn't providing much depth. It's mostly misdirection followed by a dramatic revelation of the generally-accepted answer. The dominant guess at the failure mode of that bridge has been flutter for a very long time. Anyone else who has gone through the mechanics and disagrees with me on this, please let me know your thinking.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

There was a time when this was the way to write, to give depth to your readers. The New Yorker is a classic example of this writing style. It's for people who want to read, and have time to do it. Maybe 150 years ago, people had more time than they had material to read, so this style was perfect. But now there's so much more to read then there is time to read it in, and this style is a royal pain. Times have changed, and (some) writers haven't noticed. They're still writing like we have more time than we have stuff to read.

hguant 11y ago
Buzzfeed called; they've got a list for you. In all seriousness, this type of writing - sprawling as you call it - is important. It lets the reader come away with a sense of the nuances of the situation, instead of a bullet point abstract that leads to misunderstandings and overlooked issues. This type of writing - commonly called "the essay" - is important precisely because it does take time to read it. Its meant to teach you something, not just give you a little factoid you can regurgitate throughout the day.
ghaff 11y ago
Yes, you're very important and don't have time to read long articles. If you don't want to read long-form writing, then don't do so but don't complain about it being available to people who like it. I rather like the New Yorker.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  It's not that "I'm very important". It's not even that I don't have time to read a long article. I don't have time to read nearly as many long articles as there are out there, though. And to me, it feels like the shoe's on the other foot. To me, a long form article is the author deciding that he/she's so important (or the content is) that I will find it worth the time to read the whole thing, and that it's therefore fine to hide the main point somewhere in the length, because I'll get the point so much better if I go through all the rest of it as well. That's fine for those who like that kind of thing, but, well, let's just say that it's unattractive to more and more readers as we have more and more things that we want to read. For it to be worth my while, this article has to be worth more than whatever I didn't have time to read because I took the time to read this one. The longer the article is, the higher that bar is, because the more I could have read with the same time.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    I was unnecessarily snarky. However, this is a market-correcting thing. Yes, there is a trend toward shorter pieces, which has pluses and minuses. If I write long pieces that people don't read, I may shorten what I write. Or I may not, if I feel the greater length is justified. And if some choose not to read the longer piece, I'll probably be fine with that.

bubalus 11y ago

Agreed. I quite liked the level of detail in this article, but probably because I'm already interested in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. In general this rambling style is a complete turn-off for people who (1) aren't already familiar with the topic and (2) don't have 40 hours a week to spend reading. It boggles the mind how many supposedly tech-focused articles are pumped full of human interest fluff. For example, any article that starts with someone's physical description ("John Smith was hunched in front of his computer, his messy brown hair almost completely obscuring the screen.") is almost guaranteed to be of this ilk.

danso 11y ago

To be fair, I have a lot of time on my hands :). In defense of the OP, they are covering one of the oldest and most well-known engineering history lessons, not a new trend or news event. A lot of history we take as gospel gets summed up in glib paragraphs, so if someone is purporting to explain why something has been wrong for decades, I won't hold it against them if they take more than the usual amount of words to get there.

maxlybbert 11y ago
But they aren't filling the article with useful facts or details. It's all intellectual popcorn. Mention that something big is coming up, then mention what the main engineer ate for breakfast, then pause to lament the fact that people often skip breakfast, and finally reach your big reveal. Then claim the fact that it rambles is proof of good writing.
- mcnamaratw 11y ago
  Exactly. This particular article isn't providing much depth. It's mostly misdirection followed by a dramatic revelation of the generally-accepted answer. The dominant guess at the failure mode of that bridge has been flutter for a very long time. Anyone else who has gone through the mechanics and disagrees with me on this, please let me know your thinking.