I don't really know what I think about this article and maybe that's a good thing. Not to know if I overall like it or dislike it but just to be able to pick the points I do and have then duke out with the point I dont like. Ok, I thought the article got better at the end. Not the part about the woman being an animal horder but the part where she goes there and she's looking for the tigers. I did not imagine that that would be the final scene she closed on. Imagine the impact of which she would put, say a courtroom battle as the final word. Sure the reader would be like "that woman is crazy, good thing they put her away." But to end it with her (orlean) looking for the tigers, not seeing them, going to someone's backyard, sneaking towards the woods and finally gets that glimpse-- I held my breath reading that scene as I imagine that Orlean did while she was doing it. To compel your reader to hold their breath like you did, I can't quite put my finger on how you can come to master a technique as that one. Reading the story, I didn't feel manipulated by Orlean. I felt that that was the natural train of thinking for anyone who had any relation to the woman. Animal horders may be pathological but I argue that they don't just start that way. Its a slow progression that isn't quite self discovery as it is being "caught up" --another instance in where Orlean deftly defines the ways in which people start their initial engagement with the disorder. The scenes with the courts didn't work as well as I anticipated from Orlean but she brought it all back at the end. I think I'm ending up only liking this piece because of its final scene. There was something different about this article though, that I cant actually pinpoint-- any ideas?