Having now read the article I am now both outraged and encouraged.
Outraged, because its just a really poor piece of journalism. It knocks e-readers without ever making a cogent argument against them. Take for example this sentence from the article:
“Without books” Lillian told me, “I would die."
So what will happen to young women like Lillian when the e-reader replaces the book as the dominant vehicle for the distribution and sale of written texts?
Well, clearly, the answer is, if that ever happens, that she will still be reading books, but just on an e-reader! The author of this piece is either too lazy or too stupid to realise that the word 'books' as used by 'Lillian' actually means 'reading'.
Oh, and I'm encouraged because I always fancied being a journalist and now I know that it doesn't take any real skill or discernable intelligence I might just be able to do it
