Writes Pamela Paul, in "The Joys and Perils of Return Travel" (NYT).
I would think that any place that turns out to have been worth traveling to once is better seen on the second visit. This principle applies to many other things, such as seeing a movie, reading a book, eating a food, and — most obviously — meeting a person. If your reaction to a first encounter is once is enough, then, in retrospect, you're seeing that it didn't really meet the better-than-nothing standard.
Posts
70 comments:
I dislike the way "travel" has become a meme among millennials and zoomers; every other dating profile claims to love it. It seems to be more about avoiding problems at home while at the same time creating the appearance of success for one's peers.
Don't collect stamps in a passport for the sake of stamps in a passport. I have more respect for someone who goes back to Rome every year than for someone who insists on "40 countries before my fortieth birthday".
A first world problem for NYT readers. But by all means, don’t visit Nebraska; especially Omaha.
If your reaction to a first encounter is once is enough, then, in retrospect, you're seeing that it didn't really meet the better-than-nothing standard.
Disagree to some extent. There are plenty of places that I have travelled to once for a worthwhile visit, but have no desire to go back when there are other options unexplored. Part of that is that I enjoy the novelty of seeing a new place and the sights that were worth visiting once often will not give the same amount of pleasure on a return visit. For instance, it was a real kick seeing and walking up the Eifel Tower the first time. When I repeated that experience a couple of decades later, it was a better than nothing experience but not as good as the first time.
You should have been here 30 years ago.
Woody Allen made an entire movie out of that sentence--Midnight in Paris.
The first time you visit a place, everything is new. The second time, you have different expectations based on what you found the first time. So there are plenty of worthwhile places where "once is enough," but you need some kind of connection to be worth the 2nd trip.
San Francisco is my once is enough city. Barcelona is my eternal return city.
I recently visited Dublin, having last visited in 1969. Back then they were poor, and now they're rich. But the essence of the place is still the same, and the changes are mostly at the margins. I wasn't looking for the happening club scene, the trendy art galleries, or the outrageously innovative restaurants that NYT travel articles are all about, so I wasn't disappointed.
"I would think that any place that turns out to have been worth traveling to once is better seen on the second visit." I see what you're saying, especially as applied to people, but I think there can be a different take. I did a lot of backpacking/hitchhiking through South America and Europe in the early 70's - and it changed me. It wasn't just seeing the places, it was the experience of different cultures helping me better understand who I was and who I wanted to be - it set off some sort of internal alchemy. Going back now and seeing them again would only be mildly interesting.
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man"
Rereading a great novel reveals layers that are all but impossible to perceive the first time through, if you really think that that’s because you didn’t read it carefully enough the first time, well, that’s just ignorance that name calling won’t wipe away. It’s the same with travel, experiences need to cook for a while for many aspects to be absorbed.
When we were roaming early 70's surfers we would load up the Kombi (VW Westfalia) and drive down to Costa Rica an unknown and virgin place. $5 a week for a rental, 25¢ fresh fish, and entire meal cooked for you by a local family 50¢. Perfect waves and no "plastic scene" from the States. On surfari to stay. My last trip there will indeed be my last trip there. Lovely little Tamarindo ins now an over run, over subscribed nightmare. Restaurant meals $$$$! Yikes. Condos at Witches Rock!? Say it ain't so. Sigh.
🎶And take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my minDown the foggy ruins of time
Far past the frozen leaves
The haunted frightened trees
Out to the windy beach
Far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky
With one hand waving free
Silhouetted by the sea
Circled by the circus sands
With all memory and fate
Driven deep beneath the waves
Let me forget about today until tomorrow...🎶
The places you travel to should be like second homes. In fact, it is best if you have second homes at those places, then it's not like travelling at all. It's just a change of scenery.
I/we do repeat visits to places in the US that we love. And why not? Life is short. I'm not here to check off boxes. It's a huge world and there is no way I'll see all that I think I'd like to see in the time I have (left). So, why not go back to those places that we know we love, that give us a special feeling upon arriving, as if we coming back to 'our' place? Our other home.
But...there are places around the world we've been to, or would love to get to, if we have the time. I dunno. I'm 70 now and while I'm still in great shape, travel is much harder and more annoying for me than ever. Not the 'being there', but the 'getting there'. Still...of the places I would love to spend more time: Napa & Sonoma- always, any time. Jerusalem- when it's relatively safe to do so again.
We're going to the Piemonte region of Italy this fall. Looking forward to being there, not getting there. Never been.
"For instance, it was a real kick seeing and walking up the Eifel Tower the first time."
The Eiffel Tower is dumb. Going to Paris and going to look at the Eiffel Tower is really not worth doing. Best to get that out of the way. That's why the second visit would be better. You'd find more satisfying things to do. Settle in a bit more.
"For instance, it was a real kick seeing and walking up the Eifel Tower the first time."
The Eiffel Tower is dumb. I'm really here, looking at the Eiffel Tower. Going to Paris and looking at the Eiffel Tower "in person" is really not worth doing. That's why it's better the second time, after you've gotten that predictable, routine, obvious, crowded crap out of the way. On the second visit you'll settle in a bit more and maybe have a deeper experience of the city.
The Eiffel Tower is dumb. Going to Paris and going to look at the Eiffel Tower is really not worth doing
I absolutely agree. You are better off going to the Louvre a second time or just sitting outdoors at cafe, sipping wine and appreciating Paris.
I will be visiting France for a second time next year. Some places are certainly worth a second or third visit. Some are not.
It's like books. I am currently rereading The Namesake after nearly 20 years and enjoying it even more.
" I did a lot of backpacking/hitchhiking through South America and Europe in the early 70's - and it changed me. It wasn't just seeing the places, it was the experience of different cultures helping me better understand who I was and who I wanted to be - it set off some sort of internal alchemy. Going back now and seeing them again would only be mildly interesting."
I would say that your 70s trip that was worth taking the first time was a journey into your own mind, and you're already always there. To go to the literal geographical location would not be a return visit at all.
"Rereading a great novel reveals layers that are all but impossible to perceive the first time through...."
I so strongly agree. Reading a great book once puts you in a position to have the much greater experience. You really can't get it the first time.
Same with movies. On first watch, you're distracted by understanding the story and wondering what will happen and being surprised or confirmed in your various predictions. With that done, you can now really watch the movie. It will be much better now.
"I would think that any place that turns out to have been worth traveling to once is better seen on the second visit."
With the following exceptions:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Saudi Fucking Arabia...what a shithole
Beirut, the damage from the port explosion is still very noticeable
Ukraine for obvious reasons
Rio De Janeiro isn't getting better, it's getting worse
Other than that the world's an oyster.
I've been to New Orleans many times. I'm going again next year. I've been there in all kinds of weather -- the torpor of summer, and even during an ice storm. It's very different from when I first went back in the 80s -- in a depressing way, as all cities in the USA move towards the same look. But every time I'm there, I see something new and different.
I have little inclination to travel overseas though. I've traveled enough for work that flights are to be avoided.
heard about This One Old Lady..
She doesn't just Keep going back to the same lake, time after time.. she doesn't Just photograph it..
She makes a point of Posting the pix, Every Time!! Just saying
ps. (just checked) ..
I have 133 pix, spanning the last 12 years, of EXACTLY the same spot on Hickory creek.
Since it's a creek, the water levels rise and low.. and the trees change and grow.
So i'm no one to talk
>Ann Althouse said...
The Eiffel Tower is dumb. Going to Paris and going to look at the Eiffel Tower is really not worth doing.<
Have to agree. Standing in line for an hour or two to go up to the top of the Eiffel Tower is particularly dumb, IMO. You get pretty much the same (not quite) panoramic view of Paris from the top floor of the Pompidou. See the Eiffel Tower, for sure, but see it incidentally as you are wandering around Paris.
However, the dumbest thing to do when you are in Paris - something everyone who goes there does - is go to see the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. More line and then you get in the room and what you see is the back of the heads of the fifty people between you and the Mona Lisa - which is 30' away from you and looks the size of a postage stamp - holding up their idiot cameras, taking photos of the thing. Jaysus, buy the post card and be done with it.
For that matter, going to the Louvre is kind of dumb unless you are a serious art maven. Massive and ponderous and can't be done justice in less than a day. And there are such better art museums in Paris. Go to the Pompidou's Modern Art Museum, one of the best such in Europe. Go to the Musée d'Orsay - in fact, don't miss it. Watch the kiosk flyers and go see little exhibits at the galleries advertised on them.
Paris is our favorite city in the world. Been there a dozen times. Best thing to do is to not check off sites but rather wander around and see it and experience it. Especially, sit in Luxembourg Garden, or at the Stravinsky Fountain, or any sidewalk café for a couple hours each day and let Paris come to you.
RideSpaceMountain said...
With the following exceptions:
Iraq
Afghanistan
my dad regretted til his dying day that he'd never gone back to Korea; was last there '52-'53.
There were some hills that he wondered what they looked like from the far side; where his shells fell.
But he never go to go. oh well.
With the rise of discount international travel, every iconic location is now a theme park. This includes Paris, Rome, London, Venice, Switzerland, Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Waikiki, etc. The crowds are thick, 90% of the visitors read the same pre-trip guides and have the same agendas, and the experience is often ruined by endless cookie-cutter photos and selfies.
Unless you are on a cruise ship and know what's ahead, avoid cruise ports like the plague. Even the best location becomes clogged and disgusting when 500 or 5,000 people suddenly appear (i.e., Venice in recent decades).
I've revisited some places and had mixed feeling about stagnation versus change. It depends on the specific changes and why the place is interesting -- old cities and natural attractions endure but get more and more crowded.
Cheap air fares were the worst thing to ever happen to actual travelers. Next worst thing - selfies...and especially selfie sticks.
--- "It can seem like you’ve always arrived too late...."
Especially if you get your travel ideas from media Travel sections.
When I find a good place, I like to go more than once. Until I feel I've "used it up," as a resource and refreshment. Mexico has been such a place for me, several visits over a few decades.
We also alternated two particular USA summer-vacation destinations, one on a lake, one on the seashore, for the better part of 40 years. Covid interrupted that and part of me feels I'd like to get back to both. Still wondering about it, though; haven't decided. Problem is, life pre- and post-Covid has seemed distinctly different to me. We also moved during that period. Whatever the factors may be, I can't get back to the pre-Covid life; it's gone. So those destinations seem gone, too. Part of a vanished past, like pre-war.
We return to New Zealand and Australia again and again. A primary motivation is astronomy (the southern stars are unique), but we enjoy both visiting old haunts (that pub in Dunedin, The Rocks in Sydney, …) as well as discovering new places we hadn't stumbled upon before.
Our favorite thing to do when we go to a new city is buy a multi-trip day pass for the bus. Then jump on buses at random and go to the end of the line - jumping off whenever we see something interesting, then back on until we spy the next interesting place. It delivers us from the insufferable tourist hordes - and the epiphanies and unique local experiences we derive from it are pure gold.
The Eiffel Tower is dumb. I'm really here, looking at the Eiffel Tower. Going to Paris and looking at the Eiffel Tower "in person" is really not worth doing. That's why it's better the second time, after you've gotten that predictable, routine, obvious, crowded crap out of the way. On the second visit you'll settle in a bit more and maybe have a deeper experience of the city.
I agree it would be dumb to go to Paris JUST to look at the Eiffel Tower, just as it would be dumb to go Rome just to look at the Colosseum or NYC to just look at the Empire State Building.
But I talked about walking up, so no line for the elevator and if you choose the right time not many people. Walking up or on a structure is a much different experience than just looking at it and is something that can only be done in person. I like looking at the Brooklyn or Golden Gate Bridge, but enjoy even more walking over them. When you walk up the Eifel Tower you get a tactile sense of the, for me anyway, amazing iron construction.
@Enigma
"With the rise of discount international travel, every iconic location is now a theme park."
@Kai Akker
"Especially if you get your travel ideas from media Travel sections."
Spot on. The places that were popular with the 50s and 60s American bourgeois-boulevardier are a massive aggravation now. Just not worth it, you're better off seeing them on youtube. To get a truly adventurous and fulfilling experience you have to get further off the beaten path and do more homework to find the gems.
Some personal recommendations:
>Florianopolis - Feels like one of the Greek Ionian islands before they got commercialized. Also, my wife is from there.
>Tierra Del Fuego - If you're a naturalist it's paradise, but difficult to get to and you need to be in shape.
>Kazakhstan - Truly amazing scenery in the Spring and Summer, especially West towards the Altai mountains. Cheap, and very easy to move about if you speak Chinese, Russian, or English if you stay in the urban areas.
>Mongolia, but only if you want to larp as an Asian cowboy. Avoid Ulaanbaatar like the plague. Passable Chinese or Russian is mandatory.
>Botswana's Okavango Delta - Safari, and there isn't one finer in all of Africa if you like African megafauna.
There is no reality where I return to the Koelner Dom and hike up the spire (with a child on my back, no less). Time has passed me by, and that's a good thing. If you've done the traveling right the first time, it's impossible to revisit it.
I spent the last fifteen years of my working life as a FedEx pilot, first on the MD-11 out of Anchorage, then B757 in Europe. I traveled a lot, going to a lot of tourist destinations — eg: Sydney, Shanghai, Paris, Singapore, Budapest — many times.
"You’ve changed and the place has changed. You’re visiting not simply a place, but a place captured in a moment in time ..." is completely alien to me. When we were based in Europe, I traveled non-stop, either working, or between trips. Our apartment in Düsseldorf was really a hotel room with en suite laundry.
The author must view travel as an event, rather than an experience.
That's why it's better the second time, after you've gotten that predictable, routine, obvious, crowded crap out of the way. On the second visit you'll settle in a bit more and maybe have a deeper experience of the city.
Partially agree with this. First time I went to Rome, there were some places I felt I had to see such as the Vatican Museum, Colosseum and the Pantheon. While I enjoyed that visit, I actually enjoyed my second visit more where I didn't have an agenda and serendipitously wandered around a different neighborhood each day.
So while I do agree that the second time you visit some places can give you a deeper experience, I disagree with the derisive description that you give to the itinerary of a first time visitor to a major city. Most people will only be there once in there life and there's nothing wrong with them seeing the sights that they want to see, if they enjoy that.
Paris is awful. Florence worse. Cheap airfares are the culprit.
"But I talked about walking up, so no line for the elevator and if you choose the right time not many people. Walking up or on a structure is a much different experience than just looking at it and is something that can only be done in person...."
I don't think it's worth walking up to. It's easily visible from a lot of places that are more worth walking around in. I wouldn't waste my time in Paris walking up to the giant cliché. What's the big deal about getting close to something that's especially large?
I lived in NYC for 10 years and never went to the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty. Then I went once because I had guests that really wanted to go. This is something that only tourists do. I thought it was a stunning waste of time but kept my mouth shut because they were not interested in my opinion about what was worth seeing.
"... where I didn't have an agenda and serendipitously wandered around a different neighborhood each day..."
That's pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote in my last comment "my opinion about what was worth seeing."
Maybe just get in the car and drive around your own region and get out and walk in towns and on hiking trails.
Going to these "bucket list" places is like seeking autographs from celebrities. It's much better to encounter random people who might be interested in talking with you and even getting to know you.
"A first world problem for NYT readers. But by all means, don’t visit Nebraska; especially Omaha."
I was just reading a Reddit discussion, "What state is the most uninteresting to drive through on highways?"
Of course, Nebraska came up. But it also got defended: "There are gems in Nebraska.... It doesn't take much to find them, and as someone fascinated with geology and the sky, I will admit I'm easy to impress, but I have driven some very interesting roads in Kansas and Nebraska. The Pine Ridge escarpment through Nebraska adds an interesting flair, not to mention the 3 - 4,000 feet in elevation gain, loess hills, and glaciation."
Re crowds
1. If. you have to go by plane, the airport and plane ride are always going to be an oppressive crowd experience.
2. These "bucket list" places will be crowded, so it's awful to think of throwing away 2 days on the crowded unpleasurable flying, and then be stuck with crowds (which you, yourself, are as guilty of making as anyone else).
3. Better than nothing is a high standard: Your home is not crowded. There is always home. Home is the place to beat.
4. There are real places around you that are beautiful and not that hard to drive to and not crowded. We know plenty of them, and I try not to talk about them.
I don't think it's worth walking up to. It's easily visible from a lot of places that are more worth walking around in. I wouldn't waste my time in Paris walking up to the giant cliché.
I think that's a matter of taste. Walking up the Eifel Tower, you can see the engineering, the iron rivets, feel the structure. For some that's a big "so what". Not me.
What's the big deal about getting close to something that's especially large?
Bob apparently agrees with you:
What looks large from a distance
Close up, ain't never that big
Me, I like walking up or on big things.
'You missed Angkor Wat when it was largely abandoned. Beijing when the sky was still blue.'
Have been to both places. Angkor Wat is stunning. I had no interest in going but my wife talked me into it.
If you get the right tour guide they'll take you into the back when everyone else is lined up in front. You get the place to yourself for awhile.
As for Beijing and blue skies. Yes, I could stare at the sun at noon without a problem. But I was told that it is the sand from the surrounding deserts. If true, the sky in Beijing hasn't been blue for a million years.
I do know that visiting there is proof that communism is crap. Same for visiting Cuba.
'There are plenty of places that I have travelled to once for a worthwhile visit, but have no desire to go back when there are other options unexplored.'
My theory is this.
When you travel to common destinations (London, Rome), often times at different stages of your life and/or with different people, the first visit you do all the tourist things. The palace, changing of the guard, churches, monuments, gelato, etc.
The second time you've gone is because you like something about the place.
So you stay a bit outside the city. Spend time at the small pubs and restaurants. Talk to the locals. Take hikes, eat great food, etc.
One is checking the boxes. The other is soaking up the atmosphere.
So the point of this post is to allow people to boast about their travels, yes? I think we can all agree that other people suck, and our way is best.
Angkor Wat is stunning
Agree. I was there in 2009 and it was easy to avoid the crowds if you biked in early in the morning before the tour groups come. The site is huge, so with a bike you can always find a quiet place. I had a 3-day pass and just did 3-4 hours every day and chilled out in Siem Reap the rest of the day.
But as much as I enjoyed it, I have no desire to return. I had enough time there to experience it in a relaxed way.
Ann Althouse said...
Re crowds
1. If. you have to go by plane, the airport and plane ride are always going to be an oppressive crowd experience.
"2. These "bucket list" places will be crowded, so it's awful to think of throwing away 2 days on the crowded unpleasurable flying, and then be stuck with crowds (which you, yourself, are as guilty of making as anyone else).
3. Better than nothing is a high standard: Your home is not crowded. There is always home. Home is the place to beat.
4. There are real places around you that are beautiful and not that hard to drive to and not crowded. We know plenty of them, and I try not to talk about them."
Exactly.
If my family wasn't at the end of the trip I would never fly. When driving I look for routes that go around cities. I try to go places where people aren't.
"1. If. you have to go by plane, the airport and plane ride are always going to be an oppressive crowd experience."
We fly business class on the 15+ hour plane trips Down Under and enjoy it. We are well tended to and being unplugged from the world is relaxing. We look forward to the plane rides.
Sorry to mellow your harsh.
Every traveler has been told on one journey or another, 'You should have been here 30 years ago.'
You can say that now about many European cities. London, Paris, etc. They have fundamentally changed
I saw Don Giovanni when it came out ('79) and I loved it. It's excellent in all respects and waaay better than nothing. No intention of seeing it again as it is three hours and eighteen minutes.
Sometimes there are good reasons something isn't worth doing a second time despite it's first time value.
When I did travel it wasn't to see human habitat. I spent the time in the jungles, deserts, swamps and such.
"If your reaction to a first encounter is once is enough, then, in retrospect, you're seeing that it didn't really meet the better-than-nothing standard."
The better-than-nothing standard is tied to the one-night-stand standard.
Let's not be coarse... of course.
The Eiffel tower was nice, but we refused to wait in line and waited till just before closing to go. Most tourist "attractions" are like that. They're OK if you only need to spend a limited amount of time. I've never gone up the Empire state building because waiting in line for 15 minutes seemed absurd.
Enjoyed the statue of liberty but mostly for the boat ride.
Paris was wonderful. Haven't gone for years though. Will have to talk to Jim, and see if its gotten better.
I wouldn't call the art museums "Tourist traps" though.
RCOCEAN II said, "I wouldn't call the art museums "Tourist traps" though."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Louvre is underwhelming, and trying to see the Mona Lisa in person there is one of the least pleasurable experiences a person can have.
Althouse, I greatly appreciate your ecclectic interests and engaging points of view. But, with respect, I gotta call "Travel Snob" here.
"Travelers" think they're cool and sophisticated and insightful, beyond belief. Tourists, of course, are deplorables with time and money who insist on spending both making asses of themselves, a long way from home. I got over insisting I was a "traveler" a long time ago.
I've always lusted for the "far away". Lived abroad for a few years as a pre-teen and spent more than 10 years of military service, elsewhere.
Good times. Part-of-me times. Even a couple years in parts of SE Asia during the unpleasantness there.
The minute, I took off the uniform, I bought a one-way ticket to someplace I'd never been before. I still seek "new to me"places (Oman, Georgia) and go back again and again to "part-of-me places" (Berner Oberland, Tokyo, Northeast Thailand/Laos).
Although the fundamental things all apply, every visit to every place is different. Depends on the weather, the taxi driver, the person on the adjacent barstool and the willingness to do what you want to do v. the cool thing to do.
Hated Paris the first time. Surprised me by being a big, fast-moving city inhabited to a lot or very rude people. Some visits were at the other end of the scale. The last time (quite a while ago) I did not recognize what had been a great traditional working class Parisian neighborhood - it had become Northafricastan. I won't be back. I admit to enjoying the E. Tower, though. Skipped the line for the lift and went up the stairs with my companions. That was FUN! Perhaps we had been drinking :-)
Peace
Round and Round
RATT a tat-tat.
It's....interesting... that our Blogmistress travels every morning to the shores of Lake Mendota.
As we all can see from her fantastic pics, the place always loks different.
I have a sneaking feeling that the NYT editors, when confronted with a blank space, bark out an order to the newsroom and everybody drops everything, whips up their shirt, and contemplates their navel until a stray thought manifests into something that could be construed as a 'human interest' story.
If you've been someplace once, and enjoyed it, and upon reflection decide you might enjoy it again, why wouldn't you go there?
Had I the money and energy, I'd revisit almost every place I have touristed at/traveled to in my life. (USA and Europe only; I have no interest in Asia or Africa.)
The Eiffel Tower was being worked on when my wife and I were in Paris in '17. We weren't disappointed, though. Most of the rest of the place was open.
We didn't try to visit the Louvre that time, but I can second the suggestion of taking in the Musee d'Orsay.
I've been to Venice 4 times. Twice for Carnivale, once in the off-season and once in summer to show the kids. It sucked in the summer, but Carnivale is awesome despite, and to a large degree because of the crowds. Off-season was eerie as the place felt empty.
Some famous literary critic once said that her fondest wish was to be able to read War and Peace for the first time again. So there's that. I remember thinking that the issues Tolstoy covered, the themes he dealt with, were now dead history, but it turns out, to use Faulkner's formulation, that not only is the history of the Napoleonic invasion of Russia not dead, it's not even past.
PrimoStL said: The Louvre is underwhelming, and trying to see the Mona Lisa in person there is one of the least pleasurable experiences a person can have.
If one of your main purposes in visiting the Louvre is to see the Mona Lisa, you have wasted your time and money going to Paris.
My two full day experience at the Louvre (to be repeated next year) was that it was overwhelmingly amazing. This time, I am going with a wife who is an amateur artist. We would spend more time there, but there is so much more to see.
Give me the Musée d'Orsay any day. À chacun son goût.
My daughter went to Europe years ago and during the French round she of course went to the Louvre. She was very disappointed in the Mona Lisa due to the crowds and forgetting what I'd taught her.
The Mona Lisa is 30x21". The recommended maximum viewing distance for a painting that small is (diagonalx2) 73" or five foot three. Kinda precludes crowds.
That of course works in the inverse as well. Georges Seurat's "A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte" is 6.6x9.8' (diag 11.8') giving a recommended viewing range of 17.7' - 23.6' (1.5-2). Need a big room.
Travel story. Walking the Giinza sidewalk iat 4 in the morning, the streets empty, I noticed the only other person ambling down the sidewalk opposite. We came simultaneously to a cross street with the little hand showing don’t walk. No cars. Zero cars. The Japanese man opposite waited for the sign to turn green before he crossed. It took a full minute . Thus did I understand how so many live in such a small area and how there were,, that year, seven handgun murders in the country and how little unaccompanied kids rode the subways. It is often in small moments that travel reveals much.
As to airport crowds they are no different than standing in line to see a Broadway show. In fact they are very similar experiences with the possibility of crappy or smelly or loud seat mates. And getting a cab after? Sweet Jesus. A scrum. Or concert crowds. Or ball game crowds. Navigating crowds, suffering them, is a learned experience not enhance by whining.
I've gone some places multiple times over four decades. London for one. It's gotten worse with time. I used to travel by tube but I wouldn't anymore. Westminster is OK. Soho when everything is open. My favorite restaurant is in the Borough Market, but that was also a scene of a jihadi knife attack. Another is Alexandria, VA, Old Town. Back in the 80's it was quirky and neat. Lots of interesting shops, nightlife and good restaurants. It is the highest priced real estate around and now it's chic boutiques and trendy restaurants. The original touristy restaurants at the bottom King St are now sky high, for the same food (at least there's that). It's just not a welcoming place anymore.
DC itself is problematic. As recently as 2017, I didn't think twice about walking with my suitcase from the convention center to Union Station to catch Amtrak to Baltimore for another meeting (a 1st world to apparent 3rd world journey). I wouldn't do that now. The Metro by day seems safe enough, but the old days of taking the Metro to Rosslyn walking across the bridge to Georgetown and then heading to Foggy Bottom to catch the Metro back to Alexandria are long past.
I grew up in Houston but it's changed a lot. To paraphrase Neil Diamond "SA's (San Antonio) fine but it ain't home, Houston's home but it ain't mine no more" As they say, you can't go home again.
I must have been born without the "traveler" gene. There isn't anywhere I want to go, aside from the place in the Sierras where my parents took us camping every summer. Their ashes are there now and when my time comes, I hope to join them. My brother, sister and I have been talking about getting together for a visit, maybe next year.
And crowds? After high school, I worked at Disneyland for a while. I have seen enough of crowds to last seventeen lifetimes. If there's going to be lots of people there, I don't want to go.
Michael gets it. Effortless recognition of both difference and similarity is useful in Terra Incognita.
I suspect he'd be the rare travel companion you didn't want to ditch or kill at least once in the first 48 hours.
Regardless of the amount of planning and money spent on a trip, I remind my clients, there are no perfect trips. Something is likely to surprise or inconvenience or worse. If you're warm, dry and safe; take a deep breath, sit down, enjoy a glass of wine and decide on Plan B.
When all is said and done, how you handled a stressful moment will be the story you amuse your friends with, 20 years later. So you saw the most beautiful sunset, ever, some other day. So what? Everybody's seen one.
Wow, aren't we all so special.
Ann's off her game a bit today: Twice, she misinterprets Amexpat's Eiffel Tower experience. It's not "walking up to" the Eiffel Tower, it's "walking up": There's an interior iron staircase that leads to the second or third level that very few people take, and it avoids the elevator line. We did the same, and there is a tactile experience of climbing the infrastructure that you don't get in movies, books or YouTube videos.
Of course going to Paris *just* to see the Eiffel Tower is silly. But seeing the Eiffel Tower in person is not as silly as you'd think. My first trip to Paris was with my then-new girlfriend (who is now my wife of 25 years): We wandered along tiny streets to the Seine on a cool, November evening, and as we turned a corner, the iconic structure came into view, fully illuminated, with the ubiquitous French carousel nearby. We discovered the staircase, asked if we "really could walk up?" and did so. I'm sure there was a kiss in there somewhere. Afterwards, we rode the carousel, of course. No lineups: You can thank November for that.
Trite? Maybe. Romantic? Definitely. And, there really was a feeling of an icon becoming real. It's hard to explain, except to say many of our cultural touchstones are so ingrained in our minds that it's actually jarring to discover that they really exist.
Would I go back and do it again? Well, it would be hard to top that one. And truth be told, we've avoided Paris a couple of times even though we've started trips by flying to CDG airport: But we thought "Paris? No, not this time"
As for flying: For me, it's still one of the most incredible experiences a human can have. We forget too easily how close to magic flight really is. I'm 6'2" 215 pounds, and I still choose a window seat every time. Of course, for the last couple of years we've been flying business class for overseas flights (which makes flight even MORE magical), so that skews the experience a bit. But domestically, I'll cram myself into a window seat every time.
O M said,
"Sorry to mellow your harsh."
Not at all. My older brother worked for one of the major airlines and as familiy we got to fly for virtually nothing. I got to travel all over Europe and see a lot of interesting stuff.
Now I just find air travel tedious.
"When all is said and done, how you handled a stressful moment will be the story you amuse your friends with, 20 years later. "
We ended up with a story getting out of New Zealand while covid was shutting down international travel. Interesting times indeed.
My wife was worried we would end up overstaying our visa. Me: "What are they going to do; deport us?"
It isn't that the Place has changed, with age tastes change, literally and figuratively. Taste buds change as you get older, so many of places of childhood tied to certain foods that you may not be eating, or care to eat, anymore (cotton candy) or smells, in which sense of smell may not be the same, either.
The definition of Travel has changed with virtual reality, and social media, where you can kind of go anywhere or talk to anyone without having to leave your desk. Before, Travel meant covering distance. But my personal, new definition which takes into account convenience-- is simply movement and discovery, which doesn't necessarily include any distance.
Post a Comment