It was kind of based on some of my own writing that I've done over the past few years. I think it has become a standard formula for a lot of travel writing on the Net and much of what appears in print. Peter Sutcliffe in his book about India "Are You Experienced" had it down to a fine art. I think the trick as a writer is to try to develop your travel writing beyond that.
Just one minor complaint Court. The piece is rather hidden away. I didn't know it had appeared on BNA until I stumbled on this thread. And perhaps if you hadn't highlighted it, it may have remained a secret to BNA members.
Hey CT- I try to highlight articles that go into the "theme guide" sections on the boards because of that reason (aka not appearing on the main page). The tool kit has some awesome articles and I want everyone to know about them
But happily travel writing isn't all about the tried and tested formula of gurgling stomachs, hell rides in buses or mockery! How about the true spirit of travel? There's no secret to it....
Thanks for that link to your article in your last post, Colin - once again, you have written something thoughtful and clear, which spells out your own view on travel and on India. I beg to differ in only one respect; though I have always been an 'independent' traveller, (I don't use the word 'backpacker', because I no longer travel in this way) I think package tourism, for all its sanitisation and consumerism, is nevertheless a valid way to travel for many people, and there is nothing wrong in looking at the 'popular' sights, though I must admit the noise level in the Mona Lisa room in the Louvre is quite astonishing... I think the independent traveller has two advantages over the package one: the ability to go to places where other travellers haven't reached, and timing. If you choose to linger in, say, the ruins of Troy (I pick Troy because you need to use your imagination a little in a place like that) and to take a little more time in 'doing' the place, then you can, and you're not swept up onto a waiting coach. On the other hand, you may be victim to the vagaries of the public transport system of, say, Turkey, but that's half the point of being an independent traveller. As places that people 'do' are often linked to the history of that place, again, I see nothing wrong in 'doing' them. It is sad that some people like to gobble them up, rather than take their time, and sometimes it's the guides, that in many places are obligatory, who dictate the pace, but on the whole they don't whirlwind. Gifted guides don't drone on in a monotone while showing you round a place but lace their tour with short anecdotes or peppery points of interest. I think one of the most revealing tours was of Dolmabache Palace in Istanbul, where the obligatory guide told us about the Sultan locked up in his room, surrounded by splendour, but really a prisoner in his own palace, looking out over the Bosphorus. He came across as a faded, pathetic creature, a symbol of the terminal decline of the Ottoman Empire. Nothing new in that, but very revealing all the same.
Posts: 334 | Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia | Registered: 09 July 2004
In the article I do actually say that tours serve a purpose, especially if you have limited time. There's nothing inherently wrong in going on a two week package tour or taking an organised tour to see the sites of a place. There's no doubt about it, that can be a comfortable and convenient way to do it.
What concerns me however is that increasingly we live in a world of standardisation and consumer mentality. The travel experience often mirrors the experiences of people's daily lives back home, with the emphasis on deadlines, things to tick off a list of things "done", and things to be consumed (the sites in this case). They take it on the road with them. "Independent" travellers can also fall into this category, with their over reliance on their guide book and a rigid menntality. Many aren't as "independent" as they like to believe.
I know I'm being somewhat harsh as I'm comparing that type of travel to more exploratory forms of travel where people may have the luxury of time to head off into the back of beyond for months on end. But then again, regardless of the time factor, those people have a different outlook on travel. They travel to explore and to become immersed in everyday culture, rather than to become immersed in a museum, tour bus or hotel lounge.
Here's an extract from an interview with travel writer Peter Sutcliffe, in which he makes some good points:
"This, to me, is the most disturbing aspect of backpacking. The desperation with which the majority of "independent travellers" cling to one another, aided by their guide books, sums up the spirit of contemporary travel. Distant strongholds of the western leisure industry are being set up in spectacular locations, catering specifically to the tastes of western backpackers: in particular drug-taking, white-water rafting, bungee jumping and trekking.
Most backpackers, it seems, are less interested in new experiences than in familiar experiences in exotic places. The authors of these guide books create a travellers' circuit of approved hotels which conform to rigid demands. Incense in the lobby, scruffy sofas in a courtyard and banana pancake on the breakfast menu are all compulsory. In a bizarre form of apartheid, most travellers stay in these hotels which cater exclusively for Westerners, and often specifically exclude all locals (other than the servants)."
Very illuminating points, though maybe you are being a little harsh on some backpackers/independent travellers in particular, pursuing their guidebooks rather than soaking in the country, so to speak, but here another issue is raised, how much is a guidebook a gospel? Or has this already been dealt with on another thread? Whatever, your articles are always a good read and thought-provoking.
Posts: 334 | Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia | Registered: 09 July 2004
I have a friend who sometimes visits me in India. He adheres rigidly to what's in his guidebook and is constantly consulting it. I've lived in India for over four years but he still trusts his guide book over what I say, even on the smallest of matters. I'm sure he sleeps with it under his pillow. To him it's the gospel. OK, he's an extreme case I know.
I always have respect for those travellers in the late 60s/early 70s who came overland to India at a time when guidebooks such as Lonely Planet didn't exist. It was a different time and a different spirit existed. In a way they opened up India for the next generation, and now we are at the other extreme that Peter Sutcliffe mentions.
It's always good to get feedback from you, thanks. By the way, I recommend Sutcliffe's book "Are You Experienced?". It's funny and based on the backpacker scene in India.
I'm glad it's becoming OK to be a traveller and be normal at the same time. I've never been a victim to the harrowing bus ride or the new strain of colibacter, neither have I actually backpacked, and all this used to make me feel so inadequate. But I have made some observations of places and people that have allowed me to see things in new ways (granted, raving in a fit a malaria-induced delirium will make you see things in different ways too). Anyway, I think that's what travelling should be about. It shouldn't be about the outrageous story you're going to tell your buddies back home because, quite frankly, your buddies are NOT going to care. I know I don't.
::Hold on with a loose hand (rough translation of uncle Pietie's Afrikaans saying)::
Posts: 2 | Location: Knysna, South Africa | Registered: 12 September 2005
