Venom

This article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/science/26creatures.html?_r=1&ref=science

    The story today is a feature piece about snakes, specifically the king cobra and its venom-filled lifestyle. The writer, Sean B. Carroll, begins with a personal story to introduce the topic (common among features). His story is about the first time he saw a king cobra in a zoo and how astonished he was with its agility and size: “This sleek, agile and very alert snake was a king cobra, the largest venomous snake in the world and an icon to all snake enthusiasts, including this writer.” This personal account is advantageous for Carroll because a personal connection, in and of itself, is engaging, but it also grabs the reader’s attention because it is apparent that Carroll is fascinated by snakes—whenever a writer writes about something they love, more often than not, it will be a good read.

    And it is a good read, but only until about halfway. Rather than discussing recent news, the feature instead raises a question and seeks to answer it. The question is: “How does the king cobra maintain such an apparently high-risk lifestyle?” It is presented at the end of the third paragraph, and is an interesting question for a feature piece to focus on. However, about halfway through, Carroll veers away from that central focus question, and goes on to talk about all kinds of different animals who have evolved venom-resistance. The transitioning is not smooth/clear, and the king cobra disappears from the discussion only to return in the very last sentence: “Snakes in general, let alone cobras, will never be much loved by humans, but these animals are so extraordinary, this enthusiast cannot resist one sentimental thought: Long live the kings.” It may be cute, but on the whole, this concluding sentence doesn’t summarize or add much and, more importantly, it ends the piece without the central question ever being explicitly answered or further addressed.