I really enjoyed reading this. I grew up in Spokane, and graduated from high school there in the late 80s. At the time, the place seemed just as boring and ba

I really enjoyed reading this. I grew up in Spokane, and graduated from high school there in the late 80s. At the time, the place seemed just as boring and backwater as Napoleon...though it retrospect it was far from it. I was eager to get out and go to "real" places, so I joined the military. I saw new states, countries, continents. I still went back to Spokane, though. Up until this year, I had family there. My mental map, however, was frozen in the early 90s; 1993-94, specifically...the year I lived in town after getting out of the Army. Subsequent visits to Spokane over the next 20 years became increasingly jarring, as that city moved on but the image in my head did not. In that respect, I envy the author because sometimes a lack of change can be comforting. The fast-food place where I worked my first job for two years? Demolished. The same for movie theaters where I took dates, pizza parlors and bowling alleys where I hung out with friends. That's progress, of course, and if Spokane hadn't changed at all that would probably be even more disquieting. After reading the article, I think the residents of Napoleon may have the advantage over the rest of us "big city" dwellers. While modern technology has made it into their world, they still have developed interpersonal skills that a close-knit community fosters. In my neighborhood, in contrast, I barely know my neighbors. We all have Netflix. I've worked on sexy, shiny things in my career but as the cutting edge has moved on, they've faded away; folks in places like Napoleon are more likely to focus on hardy things that last. Small, remote towns have obvious disadvantages but I think sometimes their benefits are overlooked.