E-readers are spineless compared with hardcover books, lacking the soulful carbon fingerprints of readers past. You cannot fold the pages of the wafer-thin gadgets, or make your mark with splotches of food or wine. And the idea of clutching the casing to your chest after reading the final line of a novel just leaves me cold. As one book club friend of mine waxes, “There’s just something about the smell of a book.”

Still, we all can smell and see the writing is on the screen when it comes to these devices outsourcing print media, sparing trees and saving money. According to ID TechEx, the total market size in 2010 is a whopping $131 million, and is expected to soar to $1.7 billion by 2014. Much of that growth is attributed to huge success of Kindles and other portable e-readers. “In 2020, the market value will reach $7.45 billion thanks to the availability of flexible, color displays and faster refresh rates,” the market analysts predict.

Why do users find them so friendly?

“I bought one for my wife for her birthday and enlarged the fonts so she can read the words on the screen without squinting or wearing reading glasses,” says Steve Montoya, a Bay Area IT consultant. “She’s an avid reader. Recently, she read a series she couldn’t get in e-print, and couldn’t wait to finish it and get back to her Kindle.”

While you can’t download all desirable titles now, the Amazon library and others are growing every day.

“You can get books, magazines, newspapers, even audio books to listen to with headphones,” Montoya says.

The graphite feature also is a huge power saver, he finds, noting you can get several days of reading on one charge. And since it works on a cellular network, it also makes it easy to instantaneously order books and have them appear on your library. Plus, the e-readers never seem to lose connection.

“My brother-in-law is in Afghanistan and his iPhone doesn’t work, but his Kindle does,” says Montoya.

If the prequel of our paperless future is the tragic death of magazines and newspapers, will the sequel be the disappearance of paperback and hardcover reads? Are there upsides to this plot? Here are some of the pros and cons of e-reading devices:

Cost

Pro: If you are a voracious reader without a library card, you probably will save money on an e-reader. If you are a voracious reader with a library card, you probably will save on late fees.

Con: You have to spend a lot for the cheapest iPad, which is wifi-only, holds 16GB of storage and sells for nearly $500. The Que is $649 and has a 4GB of data storage. The 3G wireless Amazon Kindle is more affordable at $250.

Storage

Pro: When the Kindle was introduced in 2007, travelers loved the benefits of of storing up to 1,500 books on a device the size of a small paperback read. And the library of available books to download keeps expanding (the first chapter of any book is free). Let’s face it, we are a storage-challenged human race with too much junk and not enough apartment and home space. This eliminates the need for shelving.

Con: Our private libraries are important for sharing with our friends and children and passing down treasured collections – classics and complementary fiction that rocked our world. Plus, it’s a lot easier to lose a gadget than an entire dusty collection.

Green

Pro: Many green publications, including Inhabitat, sing the praises of e-readers because they ultimately aid the environment by requiring no deforestation to manufacture, compared to the traditional paper publishing industry. This doesn’t even include the energy, materials, dyes and carbon from shipping that shames the print industry. According to a study by Cleantech, the carbon emitted in the lifecycle of  a Kindle, for example, is fully offset after the first year. And more earth-friendly models are on the move, like LG’s Solar ebook introduced last year, boasting a thin photovoltaic cell which keeps the juice pumping so your novel won’t go kaput during the climax.

Con: What is being offered is a new thing to buy, to keep you busy on the subway. High tech by nature is incompatible with green with exceptions such as solar panels, which also require an investment in energy to make. Green means a return to what your grandparents did, a return to simplicity: Walk a few blocks to school and work. Open a book on your front porch and snooze. That’s 18th Century technology. Also, the effectiveness of reducing emissions by popularizing these gadgets is dependent upon the publishing industry standardizing its adoption of the technology while committing to cutting down the production of physical books and other print media. Is this likely to happen anytime soon, other than by default?

Convenience

Pro: Toss the paper thin, lightweight, wireless device in your bag and you’re good to go. The new generation of Kindles is lighter than a paperback at 6″ and 10.2 oz. and you can hold it with one hand, which aids those carpal tunnel issues. This is why so many e-readers are the new companions of commuters. Hopefully, driving laws will keep users from biting into New Moon while behind the wheel. If you thought texting was was a dangerous distraction while driving…

Con: The tactile experience of gripping a book, magazine or Sunday paper can outweigh the fact it might be heavier to lug. It is this experience that is woven into our cultural wiring. No matter how hard technology tries, the tendency for consumers to prefer print over e-readers will endure for many years to come. With regard to our cultural connection to books, a graduate student at the University of Toronto wrote that his first experiences with a reader felt like “a courageous betrayal of every word written from the moment papyrus gave way to paper.”

Connection

Pro: We are a society that needs to stay connected now more than ever. In terms of signal range, e-readers never seem to drop out.

Con: Losing connection might be easier on the eyes. Having your head in a book just isn’t the same as having your peepers fixed on a screen for hours of pleasure reading. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) cases are rising in people looking for relief from fatigue, strain and irritation caused by focusing on worlds and images on a surface without well-defined edges contrasted against backgrounds. Eyes simply respond better to most printed text of bold black letters on a bright, white background.

Images: E-readers

They chow down the same foods we healthy middle-aged women eat: Quinoa, lean proteins, fresh organic produce, water from chic reusable Sigg bottles. They drive hybrids and raise funds for good causes, shun the direct sun, and sometimes even wear secondhand fashion (couture, of course).

But tinsel town celebrities my age, like Demi Moore, who is featured on the cover of W Magazine this month, are not like me or any of my healthy, naturally beautiful women friends. No, unlike the mere mortal soccer moms I rub shoulders with at book club gatherings and parties, Demi shows no signs of age or wear and tear. Where is the emerging turkey neck Nora Ephron wrote about? Where are the sagging eyes? Where are the cottage cheese thighs?

“Her body of work has been notable in no small part because of her notable body,” writes Moore cover story author, Kevin West, adding that, “hers is an undeniably striking version of midlife.” He assures us the striking former brat packer has changed at 47, evidenced by tiny lines when she smiles, but she has not gone under the knife.

“It’s their job to look amazing,” observes my astute 13-year-old daughter, Sydney. She tells me if it were her full time job, she would be flawless, too. Methinks my teenager looks pretty flawless now, but she would be happier with perfect hair and no blemishes, stuff that completes you when you are 13.

It comes down to the perception of perfection, and in achieving it, stars are spoonfed support from trainers and personal chefs. Most turn to plastic surgery, even prematurely, like America’s sweetheart Meg Ryan and highly respected eco goddess Daryl Hannah. In both cases, the surgery changed the lovely features we knew, while their bodies maintain the taut physiques of teens. In all cases, the goal is achieved. Defy age. Look young.

One looming exception is Meryl, but even the consummate thespian had to shape up to play a mature hippie in Mama Mia and Alec Baldwin’s ex and Steve Martin’s lover in It’s Complicated.

Still, Streep, now in her 60’s, is probably aging more naturally than any other major star. She doesn’t succumb to surgery and I haven’t noticed her photographs being altered through Photoshop, the favorite weapon in the arsenal of Hollywood anti-aging defenses. Streep doesn’t maintain a public persona outside of her appearances, stays out of the sun and avoids alcohol. Those are pretty good defenses, too. Bon Apetit, Meryl!

While I’m certain Demi stays gaunt for her industry, the W cover shot is not the body of a 47-year-old mother unaltered. My 47-year-old friends look amazing, but none of them have bodies like that. It’s the body of her daughter Rumer, perhaps.

The cover was as surprising as the Self Magazine issue featuring American Idol Kelly Clarkson, who didn’t actually slim down the way the magazine suggests on the cover, but erased those pounds thorough digital post-production. And how ’bout that ad featuring Ralph Lauren model Filippa Hamilton, who was deemed too fat at 5′10″ and 120 pounds and had to be drastically Shopped to cut the mustard?

While the option of doing digital makeovers is the choice of each publication, the star still pays a price in terms of credibility.

I feel compassion when I realize society demands its idols be, well, objects to idolize. Air brushing and retouching are just a few of the finishing tools employed in the land of make believe, the land the media fully endorse because we fully buy into it. But at the end of the day, it just makes us feel sad. We can’t possibly live up to these images of perfection, and frankly, neither can the stars.

The alternative: finding a way to accept ourselves as natural beauties who do the best we can to stay healthy and fit and happy and productive – and admire how we are able to thrive in a world with so much adversity, sickness, hunger and negativity.

The Demoiselles website did a recent feature profiling celebs moving in the direction of self-acceptance, even unlikely candidates such as Kim Karshashian, who posed for the cover of Life & Style Weekly completely unretouched.

When asked by the magazine why she is so open about her body (i.e. showing herself receiving a cellulite treatment on her reality show), Kardashian said she was tired of people pretending they’re perfect and covering up things when in reality we are who we are.

“You can try to improve that, but the reality is, nobody’s perfect.” she declared.

But maybe we are perfect, Kim. Maybe we are perfectly flawed.

This is the latest installment in Luanne’s column, Life in the Green Lane.

Images: W Magazine, Plastic Sergeant, Sony pictures, ABC News, Life & Style Magazine, Luanne Bradley

For good reason, Ralph Lauren is distancing himself  from this extremely altered photo of model Filippa Hamilton, who at 5′10″ and 120 pounds was allegedly fired for being too fat to wear the designer’s Town and Country fashions.

Last week, the website BoingBoing posted the image online, upsetting the Lauren team for the bad p.r. which suggests the fashion house likes its models emaciated. According to Shine, public interest prodded the company to offer an apology for the “poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman’s body.” They said they would take every precaution to prevent such sloppy Photoshop gaffes in the future.

Lauren had threatened to sue BoingBoing over copyright infringement. To this, the website suggested, that instead:

“Copyright law doesn’t give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings. You should know better. And every time you threaten to sue us over stuff like this, we will:

a) Reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it, and;

b) Publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery, so that it becomes highly ranked in search engines where other people you threaten can find it and take heart; and

c) Offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.”

Lauren won’t admit to firing Hamilton, a size 4 beauty who has been modeling for the brand since she was 15. She was reportedly let go “as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under contract,” but Hamilton argues it’s all a ruse.

“They fired me because they said I was overweight and I couldn’t fit in their clothes anymore,” she said. “I was shocked to see that super skinny girl with my face..It’s very sad, I think, that Ralph Lauren could do something like that.” Meantime, the model says she hasn’t gained weight, but sample sizes are getting smaller.

Hamilton isn’t the only victim of Photoshop manipulation. Singer Kelly Clarkson saw her shape drastically altered for the August cover of Self Magazine.

I’ve noticed, too, the svelte Twiggy look is back, despite all the groundwork by health advocates to change the unrealistic body images of women perpetrated on women by those who rule the industry – Anna Wintour and her cronies. Smaller models are once again in Vogue, sending the wrong messages to our daughters and all women.

According to Examiner, Cosmopolitan editor Kate White has offered Phillipa an 8-page spread in her magazine after hearing about the travesty.

Images: BoingBoing, Shine, People

Read all about it! Entertainment Weekly has published the first video advert with built-in speakers to get the attention of readers conditioned to respond to screens.

A report by the BBC explains the screen is built into a wafer-thin, cardboard insert and contains an ad for Pepsi Max, as well as trailers for CBS television.

“This is an extraordinary way to refresh how we interact with consumers,” said Pepsi-Cola’s chief marketing officer, Frank Cooper.

Desperate ploy, marketing breakthrough or annoyance? The chip technology, which holds up to 40 minutes of video, is likened to those singing greeting cards which have gained popularity. They are activated when you open the card.

The cardboard can add bulk to the magazines, and some male consumer have already complained it makes it hard to roll up a journal and stick it in your pocket.

BBC News‘ Los Angeles correspondent, Rajesh Mirchandani, says the magazine advert is mounted inside a cardboard insert and is instantly distinguishable from a normal flimsy page.

“You can’t really flick through the magazine, because the 4-page insert that includes the video screen is relatively bulky,” he reports.

“And when you do open up the relevant page, the actual advert takes several seconds to load and play and that’s a lifetime’s lag in the advertiser’s world,” he added.

Magazine containing the screens have been sent to several thousand subscribers in Los Angeles and New York. Will they catch on by other magazines to save the trade? We shall see.

Some other facts about the adverts:

In April, you balance this dilemma with glancing sideways at the Vanity Fair green issue tucked in beside the National Enquirer and Martha Stewart Home. You have people who understand you somewhere out there. The cover is proof, you think, wielding your reusable bags like armor.

You want to say to the woman in front of you while holding the green issue up (as the check-out boy continues to stuff one item into every bag): “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could celebrate Earth Day every day?”

Uncomfortable with this, said woman runs from the check-out line leaving behind her carriage loaded with plastic and a child sucking on the handle of the shopping cart.

Well, this year, you won’t have that golden opportunity as Conde Nast-owned Vanity Fair has decided that green is more commonplace nowadays. The thinking is that we don’t need to devote a whole issue to what we already know. Surely they could have found something cutting edge to write about in the midst of our green renaissance. How about new causes, new calamities,  inventive and hopeful solutions?

We don’t always need Al Gore and Julia Roberts on the cover. Less notable noses would have been fine this year.
They would have been pulled from the Arctic trenches, the polluted bayous and hell storms of wind farm debates. They would have been clad in subdued duds but that’s where Vanity Fair could have had fun staging their scene; styling them to look more worthy in a world that sometimes forgets their worth.

It’s no secret that the media tends to focus on the negative instead of the positive, feature problems instead of solutions and evoke despondency instead of motivation. Looking to refresh your optimism?

Ode magazine, ” for intelligent optimists”, offers a healthy dose of inspiration. In each uplifting issue, you’ll find stories regarding active efforts towards a progressive environmental, social and economical revolution, not to mention insightful columns by renowned figures like Paolo Coelho, Amy Domini and David Servan-Shreiber.

Take it from Foreign Policy: “Read Ode, and you may just figure out how to fix this crazy, messed-up world.”

But, that’s not all you’ll gain. Your first issue is free, and, if you subscribe for an annual fee of $19.95, they send you a Thich Nhat Hanh meditation CD and plant a tree in Africa to represent your commitment against global warming.

Plus, recycled paper is used to print every copy and a digital version is available online. (P.S. You can get a good news fix right here, too.)

Image: willsfca

I love magazines and I love travel but not every travel magazine does it for me. My eyes start to glaze over at the terrible sameness of so many resorts, while my heart sinks at the knowledge that the “paradise” they are selling is all too often actually a former one.

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot, with a pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot. – Joni Mitchell

You won’t find a bikini model on the front of Wend Magazine. It’s mainly focused on adventure travel – from hiking the Andes to skiing Japan. But it also has a strong environmental theme – one of the articles in the current issue is about a sailing expedition to the site of a marine plastic disaster in the North Pacific Ocean. There’s a section called Greenery devoted to sustainable design and a section called Platform devoted to an environmental non-profit organization.

The print magazine is printed on paper certified by the Forestry Stewardship Council – meaning it comes from sustainably managed forests – with soy-based inks. Subscribers can also opt for a paperless digital subscription – especially green if you live on the other side of the world (it’s a US-based magazine). The website also has a lot of additional content such as podcasts.

I really like the look of Wend but I must confess I found the digital edition hard to read. It would work well on a desktop with a large screen but it was a bit unwieldy on my small laptop screen – I either had to squint at tiny type, or enlarge it and navigate with the browser arrows. Try it out for yourself – maybe you’ll fare better with the digital edition than I did. If not, but you like the content, at least you know the paper product is also ethically sound (though it would be nice to see an upgrade to recycled paper at some point).

Is print dead? Not for CB2, which is selling art weaves of 75% recycled international newspapers.

The new Edition textile print, $99.95, cleverly frames the papers around a colorful square of 25% recycled canvases. The 48″x42″ hanging is handloomed and comes packaged in a cotton drawstring bag.

It’s all part of the furniture company’s limited edition art introduced in its new winter catalog. Many of the pieces, like this weaving, are reasonably priced, allowing you to grow your art collection on a budget. Since they come from special looms, CB2 says it can only receive small quantities as they are made. If they are out of stock when you order, don’t worry. More are on the way.

Meet Sammy Wilson. He believes that mankind is not to blame for global warming. Which, in itself, isn’t a big deal. After all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are many people around the world who also share this view. But Sammy Wilson is Northern Ireland’s environment minister. And as such, he is in a position to influence peoples actions and reactions to environmental issues. So his recent denouncement of a British climate change ad as “insidious propaganda” and subsequent banning of the ad from being broadcast in Northern Ireland is a real concern.

According to Wilson, the Act on CO2 ads, aimed at promoting people to reduce their use of electricity and fossil fuels by doing simple things such as turning off their lights, were not only misleading but also dangerous. Wilson suggested that they gave people the false impression that “by turning off the standby light on their TV, they could save the world from melting glaciers and being submerged in 40 feet of water.”

Now before you start thinking that Wilson’s thinking is Northern Ireland’s thinking, know that Wilson’s action is not supported by either his own party nor the other coalition parties that make up the Northern Ireland government.

This isn’t the first time that Sammy Wilson has been in the limelight since becoming the environment minister last year and somehow I don’t think it will be the last time.

(source)

Image: James Jordan

Fuller breasts, a smaller tush, flatter tummy – all without a diet or breaking a sweat. That’s what cosmetic surgery can do, and mainstream magazines are happily filling pages in their publications with information about it.

A recent issue of  Women’s Health Issues, a Canadian-based medical journal, took a closer look at what the media is sharing with their readers. The study, entitled: “Representations of Cosmetic Surgery and Emotional Health in Women’s Magazines in Canada”, examines how popular women’s magazines portray cosmetic surgery and associated emotional health.

Five English-language women’s magazines were selected on the basis of their 2005 Canadian circulation rates: Chatelaine, Cosmopolitan, Flare, O: The Oprah Magazine, and Prevention.

While the content analysis showed that the articles did in fact tend to present readers with detailed physical health risk information, only 48 percent of the articles discussed the impact that cosmetic surgery has on emotional health. Most often the stories linked cosmetic surgery with enhanced emotional well-being regardless of the patient’s pre-existing mental state. Articles also tended to use male accounts to provide defining standards of female attractiveness.

According to the Canadian Society for Aesthetic (Cosmetic) Plastic Surgery (2007), the term “cosmetic surgery“ refers to invasive surgical procedures such as breast implants, liposuction, or facelifts. Distinct from reconstructive surgery, which aims to fix body disfigurement, cosmetic surgery is used to alter “normal” and physically healthy bodies.

A 2007 Canadian consumer survey revealed that 20.35% of respondents had undergone cosmetic surgery and 46% would consider surgery to change some aspect of their appearance.

The findings were consistent with arguments in research literature that women’s magazines contribute to the medicalization of the female body; that cosmetic surgery is generally portrayed as a risky but worthwhile option for women to enhance both their physical appearance and emotional health.

According to the study, some research has found positive correlations between cosmetic surgery and emotional well-being, suggesting that cosmetic procedures increase body image satisfaction and produce psychological benefits that improve one’s overall quality of life. However other studies have shown that emotional health problems, such as anxiety and depression, may arise or become amplified in some patients as a consequence of cosmetic surgery; that body image dissatisfaction may increase after surgery, and that breast implant recipients are at increased risk for psychiatric admission and suicide.

Implications for future research and public education strategies were discussed.

Image: Bitter Jug