
Spooked: What do we learn about science from a controversy in physics? - tomhoward
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/30/spooked-books-adam-gopnik
======
dstyrb
Some discussion here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10626123](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10626123)

------
NickHaflinger
I can't actually read anything written in the newyorker house style. It's the
carefully constructed multi-component sentences, the endless baroque
digressions, sorry I just can't take it anymore, for f __ks sake can 't they
just get to the point :)

~~~
uououuttt
I personally find the New Yorker to be one of the few news sources worth
reading. Can you point out any particular sentences in this article that you
don't like the style of? Reading through it quickly I can't see anything that
seems overly convoluted or unnecessary.

~~~
jimminy
The writing is not horrible, and certainly doesn't suffer from being
convoluted or unnecessary at the larger scales. But the fashion it is written
has an air of self-import, that can be off-putting.

Everything that is said could be said just as well and more succinctly in a
more prosaic manner.

~~~
vacri
You're talking about removing the New Yorker's branding. Their target audience
is more intellectual than mainstream media's.

~~~
jimminy
I'm well aware, and didn't say a thing of removing their branding. I just
pointed out what the grandparent was referring too.

It is a choice to focus more on the form of the content than on the content
itself. They could still target intellectuals without having to throw in
pointless analogy and other bloated verbiage. It just feels like it's faux-
intellectual.

