Disclaimer: I know this is subjective, so what I say below may absolutely not apply to others. Just how I see it. > b) explanation but might be too quick/bad/h

Disclaimer: I know this is subjective, so what I say below may absolutely not apply to others. Just how I see it. > b) explanation but might be too quick/bad/hard to understand I think this assumption may be underestimating your reader > Perhaps what I'm missing is that all those interested in my article actually already have this "feeling of how things work" and are looking for a long, thorough explanation about it? This is possible, I guess, but my intuition tells me I'd feel the same is I were coming from "I know JS & React Native basics but haven't explored Native APIs and the bridge in detail yet". But I could be wrong. > I've always loved analogies I use analogies a lot, and find them incredibly valuable for explaining complex concepts from one domain, to someone unfamiliar with that domain, in an reduced and simplified way. What you're doing here is trying to explain a new concept (a) in the domain the reader is already familiar with and (b) to expand, not reduce, the detail understanding of said concept. (a) seems to make analogies unnecessary but (b) also seems to make analogies unsuitable (requiring you to draw second or third corrallories from them - as the gp said, bringing the reader further and further from the original concept).