BootsnAll's Travel Community

Hi guys,

I've just finished reading an article about backpacking and it got me thinking...

Guidebooks are often referred to as a backpackers 'bible' and i can see why when i think about all those people wandering around with their 'lonely planet' or equivilent glued to their fingers! What i want to know is why!

I'l be the first to admit that those people who religiously follow the 'book' annoy the hell out of me..and perhaps if im really honest i feel slightly superior to them because of it! But when i think back the first time i went travelling wasnt i just like them? Yep!

So..
a) why are backpackers so reliant on that little book? Is it a safety net? Is it just practical that we need something to help us along in an alien place?
b) are all those annoying people who defer constantly to their guidebooks all first time travellers learning the ropes? Does it make them less of a backpacker??

Whew crikey that was a bit of an essay! Sorry!
What does anyone think?

I do a bit of both....I do like to have a Lonely Planet with me just in case but then I also like to just wander around and find things on my own...

I recently went to Krakow and for the first day I was terrified of getting lost...and then I thought "bugger it" and went out walking around (with a friend) and we just found our way and we weren't afraid of asking people.

But the Lonely Planet can be rather useful...for example when we went to the SaltMines we found out from the Lonely Planet that actually there was a mini bus that was cheaper than the train and also more convenient...

Also, the Lonely Planet tends to recommend rather good hostels...

So, is it a bible? Maybe not, but still useful...

I feel a little naked without a guidebook, but once I'm there, I tend to use it only occasionally. Guidebooks are good planning tools, and the hostel recommendations are often good, at least they make it easy to find the areas where the hostels are located. The city maps are a definite bonus (although I always get a better map when staying around for a while).

I also like them for background information and do's/don'ts. The general idea of costs, length of time for travel and that sort of information.

quote:

b) are all those annoying people who defer constantly to their guidebooks all first time travellers learning the ropes? Does it make them less of a backpacker??

I am not really sure what you are annoyed about. What do they do that actually annoys you? If they are picking their nose while they read it then I understand, or if they are spitting on the ground while flipping through pages then I would understand. Maybe they are taking swipes at you with the book inbetween page turns?

Seriously though, I personally thought a guide book wasn't that important before this current trip but if only for the listing of accommodation and bus and train routes, they are extremely useful.

I would never look at someone who never uses them with any more admiration than I do with someone who does. To each his/her own. We don't travel to impress anyone and we don't travel to go "look mom no hands". That is child's play and this isn't a competition.

So again, what exactly are you annoyed at? I can't figure it out.

You know what il be honest and admit that the sort of people Vicky is referring to here annoy me too..

I readily admit that the guidebook can be a valuable addition to a backpack...but im scepticle of the way they have been written and by whom and always take their content with a pinch of salt-i mean who knows what bribes the writer has taken to include hostel A over almost identical hostel B across the rd? Not only do i think relying on a rough guide or lonely planet or whatever you choose is unwise for this reason, but has anyone considered the environmental/social issues? Those people who follow their guidebook to a T end up following an almost identical route to every other guidebook reader unadventurous enough to do the same...this is so unsustainable.

You know what i think that seeing a guidebook as a bible just makes you a backpacker..

A traveller no..a real traveller is independantly free spirited and does not need a book to guide him..he may rarely check for titbits of info but he would NEVER consider taking everything in that book too seriously. Thats the opposite of what travelling is about..how can you explore independantly if your following the path some jumped up travel writer (who like Jambo said is prob getting paid a mint for it) sets for you?? Backpackers on the other hand - they are trying to be free like the traveller but are restrained by their desire to be comfortable and enjoyment of the western lifestyle. They want to travel and experience new things but they like it that the lonely planet acts as a comfort blanket for them. They are weaker and less adventurous in spirit than the true traveller and should not be compared.

So I am not a traveler

Damnit, and I thought I was well on my way.

Something does smell fishy about this thread.

gosh joey! you're such a n00b! NO travel cred whatsoever.

in all seriousness though. travel is a decision that we each make on our own, and the way we decide to do it is something that doesn't need justification or judgement from others. on zanzibar a little while ago, i saw a huge group of european tourists with a guide. i thought it was funny, and i was glad i wasn't in that group, but i never thought any less of those people. in fact.. i would think that travelling helps to decrease stereotyping and close-mindedness. but i guess it doesn't work that way for some people.

yes, i use a guidebook, and i don't feel comfortable at all if i were to show up at the kind of places i travel to, without one. i don't see anything wrong with it. the maps are helpful (when they're correct), and they provide a variety of things to do, places to see, etc. i don't have my nose buried in it all the time though. that's the whole point of a guidebook, isn't it? it acts as a GUIDE-- no one has to take anything a guidebook says word for word, and it's faulty logic to assume that someone in possession of one is justified as a source of annoyance, and not a 'real' traveler, whatever that means.

are you a 'real backpacker' if you fly into new york city or london without doing any prior research? what if you bring a guidebook with you during a trip to gabon or cameroon? what if you hire a local to show you around the democratic republic of the congo? is this whole not-using-guidebook-rant all about building travel cred?

I've always been from the "Knowledge Is Power" school and I'm a confirmed guidebook lover. I even interviewed for a job at Rough Guides, but even before I did I knew that guidebook writing is a notoriously low-paying job. Those writers aren't getting rich by steering readers into expensive substandard places for their own benefit.

So I'll describe a hypothetical first trip to Rome using my Lonely Planet and maybe you guys can tell me what I'm doing wrong?

I've read that hotels in Rome are expensive, so I'll spend two days, but only one night there. On the early morning train from Florence I read the chapter about Rome's history to refresh my memory once I hit the ground. I choose the things that interest me and figure out a basic plan.

Time is short so I decide on a 2-hour city bus tour to see everything right away and then I'll go back later to the things I want to see up close. There are two companies doing bus tours and LP tells me that the slightly more expensive one is way better, so I wait an extra 15 minutes for that one. Near the end I hop off the bus near a group of cheap but reliable hotels that are much better located than the dodgy ones near the train station. I check in and put my bag away.

Next I read about how to get the subway to the Vatican and I check out LPs subway map. I ride with the locals and next thing you know I'm at St. Peter's. While in line I read all about the Vatican and it has new meaning to me as I'm seeing it in person. I take a tour, walk around St. Peter's, then walk back across the river. Thanks to my maps I know where I am so I weave through the side streets in the general direction of the Pantheon.

After the Pantheon I have a couple of glasses of 1 Euro wine at a cafe I find, and I'm the only tourist there. I find a grocery store and wander through to see the food and the prices and buy bread and salami for lunch on a bench. Then I'll walk past the Trevi Fountain, Spanish Steps, and several other monuments and such, and I read all about them while I'm right there, taking notice of details I'm reading about that I might not have seen otherwise.

I have dinner near my hotel at a recommended restaurant and I can see why guidebooks recommend it. Then I wander around the area and have a few beers along the way before turning in.

The next morning I get over to the Colosseum when it opens because I've read that the lines are shortest then. I'm on a self-guided tour, but my trusty LP gives me more than enough info. Next I tour through the ruins of Ancient Rome and the surrounding area while reading the details in my LP. Then I use my LP map to weave my way on side streets back to the train station and I'm gone.

I live my life in the lesser-known areas, but when I visit Rome I want all the information at my fingertips. If I was staying a week I would have finished my guidebook stuff efficiently by Day 3, but I can't afford Rome for a week.

What have I done wrong and how would NOT bringing a guidebook help?

well said, rawjer.
I agree whole-heartedly, and it sounds very much like how we (my travel partner and I) use our books. we don't typically wander around with our noses in it, unless we are fairly lost or trying to find something very specific and are having a hard time. And sometimes at archeological sites and the like, where there is extensive write-up - I actually want to learn about these places and their histories, so why not use a guide book instead of paying $10 for a guide or site pamphlet at each location? the book is cheaper in the end.

And we also use them to supplement information from other places - ie, in Turkey we used some of the recommendations for accomodations, but we also used the internet, recommendations from other travellers (business cards are a pretty big thing in some parts), and from hostels themselves (they often have friends in other towns that they like to recommend, and if you like the place you're in now, and they recommend someone in the next town, there's a good chance you'll like it too).

so what's wrong with the guidebook used a basis? I sure don't like showing up in totally foreign places and feeling lost right off the bat. having even the smallest sense of where I am going really gets things off to the right start.

and can we not re-open the debate about travellers vs. back-packers? we all travel to see the world, regardless the methods that we use. our goals are essentially the same. we should dwell on what we have in common rather than pick on each other for the things that we don't. Learn from each other, rather than compete.

I have to admit that I am the one of non-guidebook faction. I like to wander around and get the feel of the place it's a lot more fun. I look at guidebooks before I leave and write down a few places mentioned that might interest me, but I feel funny when looking at groups of backpackers wandering around with their guidebooks in hand. Especially since in Rome one summer I was sitting at a sidewalk cafe and saw no less than fice groups walk by. All of them had one person with them reasing from the guidebook to the others. And each group was speaking a different language.

Dreamer Helen wrote

quote:

recently went to Krakow and for the first day I was terrified of getting lost...

I am never lost because I am always where I am. I may not know where I am but there I am.

This is a topic that seems to come up again and again. And I've felt aligned to both camps at one time or another. But does it really matter? As has been stated, we travel for ourselves, and whether or not I'm using a guidebook, that only enhances or hinders my experience. Sure we can generalize about the people walking around with there nose in a book, and think less of them because they aren't experiencing the "real" place, but then what is the "real" place. and if we find that they are the annoying one's walking around the same place's, at least they're tring to get to know the place. I've been around alot of places, and have found people there, no guidebook, just winging it, and they seemed to have compleatly missed so much of the place. I've done both, and have what works for me, so I'm not to say the either way is better, but to look down on other travelers, because of guidebooks, that's silly. There are plenty of good reasons to be annoyed and outraged by other travelers, but a guidebook is not one of them, it is just a tool, and how it is used might be the better topic.