1. Quote: “Gates argued that computer screens are able to replace paper in all the functions that paper has heretofore assumed. He also insisted that, in addition to being less onerous, computers take up less space, and are more easily transportable; and also that the transmission of news and literature by these electronic media, instead of by newspapers and books, will have the ecological advantage of stopping the destruction of forests. A cataclysm that is a consequence of the paper industry. People will continue to read, Gates assured his listeners, but they will read on computer screens, and consequently there will be more chlorophyll in the environment” (Llosa 5). 
    1. Comment: This article was obviously written in 2001, so technology was nowhere near as advanced as it is today. Does that mean everyone is now reading on computer screens today? No. I think Gates was very wrong to want to strip people from reading hard copy, in-print books. My mom got a kindle for Christmas once, and I don’t think she’s touched it in 5 years. There is something about reading a paper copy book that feels more relaxing and more real. I almost feel I get more lost in a print book than reading on a screen. It hurts my eyes, it’s not relaxing at all. I understand using it to stay up to date with news, it’s actually more convenient, but otherwise no. 
      1. Question: It’s now been 20 years since Gates put out this statement. Do you think there will ever be a world where print books completely disappear and everything is technological?
  2. Quote: “A person who does not read, or reads little, or reads only trash, is a person with an impediment: he can speak much but he will say little, because his vocabulary is deficient in the means for self-expression” (Llosa 5).
    1. Comment: I highly disagree with him on this one. This is one of the areas where I believe he goes way too overboard and his thoughts take over the reality. In my opinion there are no limits to creative expression and it can be shown in many different ways than through just vocabulary. A few sentences he mentions that a society without literature would resemble a community of deaf-mutes. This is very dehumanizing to me and there are so many instances in the world and in history where this does not apply. Although, I understand where he is coming from about using vocabulary to have a better understanding about the world around you, I just don’t think that is only way.

Question: What are Llosa’s though processes when writing this? Does he draw form history at all? How close minded is he?