[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 fks 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.

[RodericDay]

Seems to me like suggesting food should be compressed and blended to maximize ease of consumption

[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.

[random_moonwalk]

I'm with you. Choice nugget from the description of entangled particles: 'Like Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, no matter how far they spread apart they would still be helplessly conjoined.'

[platz]

I would have pointed out "If poetry is emotion recollected in tranquility, then science is tranquility recollected in emotion" but its not fair because its a quote