2 ms·
Strongly disagree with this sentiment. If you want to read an abstract, read a scientific paper. The New Yorker is about writing essays. If you are reading s
by urthor 5y ago
Strongly disagree with this sentiment.
If you want to read an abstract, read a scientific paper.
The New Yorker is about writing essays. If you are reading something from the New Yorker and want a shorter piece, you're going to be disappointed.
The entire philosophy of the essay writing style is:
"Some ideas are better communicated in a long-form where you have to read the whole thing for it to make sense. A shortened abstract is not good enough."
There are some thoughts and ideas in life that cannot be treated with brevity.
This long-form essay is valuable because it is not brief, and it deals with a topic that is not suitable to be thought about with brevity.
Understanding the ongoing struggle between ROWE and the status quo in detail is valuable. A short summary is not enough.
- ekianjo 5y ago> "Some ideas are better communicated in a long-form where you have to read the whole thing for it to make sense. A shortened abstract is not good enough." I don't think you understand the point that we are trying to make. An "essay" should not be a fluff piece where nothing of value is said in several thousands words, which could be summarized in 3 sentences without any loss. In this piece there's just nothing but air from beginning to end, so it does not even qualify as "an essay".