(Context: I used to teach American Literature at a Carnegie Mellon R2 university, and I can recognize what other humanities scholars would identify as good writ

(Context: I used to teach American Literature at a Carnegie Mellon R2 university, and I can recognize what other humanities scholars would identify as good writing.) From the point of view of a belles lettres/liberal arts reader (as opposed to an audience interested in journalistic reportage) Manaugh's writing is engaging, thought-provoking, and compelling. Manaugh makes his points through his style and, in my view, his style is superb. From a purely informational perspective, I can see how such a dense and somewhat repetitive style could be annoying and uninteresting. However, from the perspective of someone, say, interested in cultural studies as a humanistic discipline, Manaugh's cultivation of his ideas using a richly detailed metaphorical scaffolding is aesthetically pleasing and informationally satisfying. In terms of the level of engagement and in a domain more familiar to people develop software, I would compare Manaugh's style to Paul Ford's style in "What is Code?"[0]. Ford is himself someone quite experienced in the world of humanities, and his "What is Code?" is a highly-detailed ethnographic window into the world of bespoke software creation. tl;dr: "The Burglar With His Very Own Mac Attack" would be considered by many humanities scholars as well-written, even if they did not agree with Manaugh's conclusions. [0] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjkmenulrnMAhUI9GMKHSbyAyQQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fgraphics%2F2015-paul-ford-what-is-code%2F&usg=AFQjCNFqVVi86DOCCEX2LFdETJ03DN3oXA&sig2=kgUunvpwfhf2cCBHraLgpA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...