Fingerprints

You have to admire David Grann's confidence. He just writes the story and trusts you to keep reading, even though you have no idea where it's going. How do we feel about this? I know some of us are sick of the nut-graf discussion, but is the writer required to give away at least a foretaste of the story arc in the first section? Because we don't get it here.



Which means, if you don't keep reading, you miss the stunning revelations that crop up later. (He followed a similar structure with his piece "Trial by Fire," but in that case at least the deck headline provided some sense of the things to come. Not here.)



One thing not up for debate: Grann is one of the best reporters out…