I must say I'm rather dissappointed in the writing quality of someone who purports to be an MFA candidate in Creative NonFiction. Though this may be more the fault of the blogstyle medium than antyhing else.

It is still better than the middle-school level writing of the editorial the author is responding to.

As for the points made therein, I'm a bit disgusted. The library was conceived as a place for anyone to go to elevate himself by learning. It is meant for a kind of public education. It is not a homeless shelter. Miss Oliver's claim that the library must exist to shelter the low detracts from it's original purpose, to educate the young and old.

Furthermore, Miss Oliver's argument, that we should keep the libraries for the homeless and the addicts jettisons the role of the library as a community center. How can one be comfortable leaving their children at a library when 75% of the patrons are current/former addicts and or homeless?

I love libraries. I grew up in them. I don't think Amazon should replace them (though I do think Amazon would do well to sponsor them, utilizing their distribution channels, repository of ebooks, and even publishing library editions via their print-on-demand services). However, Miss Olivers essay is more an argument to end libraries rather than to save them.