Sometimes in the midst of attempting to be creative and poetic and attest to, say, the mythic stories of the city, a journalist is given free rein and allowed to write something that doesn't fit the usual newspaper rubrics of how to construct an article (inverted pyramid, etc.). And sometimes, that writer stumbles along the way, and files a story that is so filled with purple prose and allusions, and seems so enamored with itself that it fails to do the most important things a feature article should do: Tell a story and tell you why you should care about the story it's telling. " Tracing Steps of the Man Who Walked Away," in my opinion, is just such an article. Written by Michael Brick, and appearing on the front of the Times' Metro section today, it's so confusing that I've read it twice now and still can't tell you much beyond this: It's about a guy who witnessed a Brooklyn plane crash and then moved to Manhattan and never came back to the neighborhood and then died. I'm not even sure if that is even correct or gets the point. Where were the editors on this? Can I get a nut graph, a time element, a straightforward sentence .... Argh.