On: Why the 1930s were a golden age for chocolate (1996)

[n4r9]

Am I the only one who came away with more appreciation of the "what", but none at all of the "why"?

[autokad → n4r9]

i got confused at first too. its evidence that the 1930s was the golden age of chocolate, not an explanation of why the 1930s are the golden age of chocolate

[dragonwriter → autokad]

Lots of "why X is Y" articles are really "why X is described as Y" rather than "what caused X to be Y".

[n4r9 → dragonwriter]

The confusion is compounded by one of the first lines:

> this extract ... explains why the decade produced virtually all the classic bars we still love today