Sounds to me, like "the internet" (whatever this personificated entity might be) wasn't the writers real problem. Maybe he was asking the wrong questions in the

Sounds to me, like "the internet" (whatever this personificated entity might be) wasn't the writers real problem. Maybe he was asking the wrong questions in the first place. Maybe I am just reading too much into this. I don't know. The strangest part was, when he wrote about is niece. Why didn't he talk to her in that year - do her parents not have a landline/mobile phone? What is the difference between the described strenuous phone-call and a skype-call? Sorry, but I just didn't buy this part. It did not get me. His niece was right. If he would have wanted to talk to her, he would have found a way. And there are other things, I really didn't get: If these special letters (between all the rest) would have really meant that much to him, he would have found a way to answer them. But it just feels like, he really did not know himself before, during or after this sabattical. And he does not know himself (or his [perceived] problem) any better. Sorry to judge that hard, but this "journalistic" piece was really saddening me. Sorry, but I take for granted the ability to be able to read some hundred pages of literature. Even Homer. Or Foucault. Sorry, call me old fashioned, but I take for granted, that you listen when talking with someone. And things like this.