Why I Don't Read Guide Books*
|
This week, as I sat in a hospital waiting room while a friend had surgery, I got caught up on some long overdue, totally banal magazine reading. I fantasized about crafty projects that look great but for which I have neither the skills nor the penchant to do myself. I flipped through People, and US Weekly, and OK!, and wondered for the umpteenth time why people buy and become engrossed in those magazines. I learned what's hot and realized (again) that I'm not. And I read list after list of the next "IT" places around the world, with Miami elbowing a place on more than one must-see roster. "Calle Ocho is more polished than ever!" gushed one writer, and I wondered whether I needed an eye exam because we were just on Calle Ocho last month and it looked to me like it could use a good polish. In fact, after navigating south on the one-way Calle Ocho for more than 30 minutes, we finally gave in and ate at one run down restaurant that served nothing it advertised on the menu. The next day we grabbed lunch at a cafe where the waitress had no qualms telling us the croquetas were Goya-brand frozen confections heated up in some bubbling used oil by a tank-topped fry cook who seemed to be more adept at transacting deals--given the number of people coming off the street and into the kitchen--than flipping crisp croquetas onto greasy plates. Miami's art scene may draw crowds from all over the world, but it also attracts a homeless man who washes his clothes in the fountain in front of the contemporary art museum. I wondered what Miami the writer had seen and why our visions were so different. Then, I fished a two week old Sunday Times out of my bag and settled into the Travel section. The headline story? "53 Places to Go in 2008." Miami was there, too (in fact, it grabbed two places on the list--one for Mid-Beach, Miami and one for South Beach), nestled amongst far-flung places like Sylt, Germany, "known for its nude beaches, thatched houses, and designer stores"; Hvar, described by the Times as "Croatia's St. Tropez"; and Quito, Ecuador, which the author described as no longer a "whistle stop" in transit but a worthwhile destination due, in no small part, to the fact that the city now boasts (thank God) a new Marriott, which makes it a "glorious new center in the so-called Middle of the World." Are you sensing a theme here? I don't read guide books or travel magazines because I believe that the only way you come to know and understand a place is by being there. A year ago, Francisco and I had dinner with some friends who were entertaining a guide book writer. He'd swooped down onto the island for just a few days, brandishing his dubiously earned credentials for free rooms, free meals and drinks, and free entertainment. He seemed to have built his itinerary around the recommendations of some well-heeled hosts who were showing him a very particular Puerto Rico, and he preferred to pursue that agenda rather than do some important fact-checking for the places he'd been assigned to write about. He mentioned he'd be writing about the rain forest based on what he remembered from an earlier visit "a few years back" rather than take the time to see what might have changed since his last trip. He "just didn't have time" to make it over to the "other side" of the island, as he was pushing his deadline and had, he confessed, been procrastinating due to other travels. We had an argument about what he referred to as Puerto Rico's "culinary scene," which he judged to be one of the most exciting in the world. "Where have you been eating?" I practically spat at him, "and what do you eat at home?" The standards against which he was judging his experiences were rather suspect in my mind, and I told him so as I made a mental note never to buy his book. I'm not saying that guide books and travel magazines don't have some useful information, because they do (they also have a lot of misinformation--Insight Guides for Puerto Rico being one error-filled tome). But the real reason I don't read guide books or travel magazines with any regularity is because I don't want to be convinced about the fabulousness of a place. I want to discover that--and all its blemishes and struggles, too-- on my own. And I definitely don't want to be sold a bill of goods about how some first world hotel or some $5000 tour package--neither of which I can afford anyway-- has made a place inherently more travel-worthy, especially when it's probably done so at the expense of locals. Don't get me wrong; I love travel writing. I read stories and travelogues and memoirs and those, I think, are more accurate, more real, and more thoughtful than anything an itinerary bound writer can crank out in a brief visit. Besides, reading about a place never prepares you for it. It's a whole other experience once you're there. *with an exception for Tim and David, who I know are going to write amazing guides! |
+ Enlarge
Nice post Julie. Some guidebooks are a lot better than others, and most provide good background info, if nothing else. I look at them as a springboard to experiencing a place - read through the book, get a sense of the standards, then find my own way.
Did you ever hear the story about the sausage factory? About how once you've seen how they're made, you never eat them again...
Just in case you haven't read it, be sure to check out my interview with Tim Leffel of Perceptivetravel.com. He has some good insights about travel publications that cater to the "aspirational" crowd.
http://www.bravenewtraveler.com/2007/11/08/interview-tim-leffel-on-quality-travel-writing-in-the-internet-age/
Great comments y'all, and a great post Julie. Thanks for numbering Tim and I among the righteous. I'll say this: guidebook writing has been a funny game. I never brandished my "official letter" stating I was a guidebook writer, partly because it was so badly translated into Spanish that it was more an embarrasment than anything else. Personally, I'm with Julie: I've never used a guide book to travel (although I have read surf-reports in helping to find waves, which, indirectly have guided certain travels). There's nothing like arriving somewhere and just letting the flow of interactions with the local people guide you.
Our magic letter is poorly translated?! That explains the looks I'm getting. I thought it was my rugged masculinity that had the receptionists giggling...
I have to admit, I like researching a country or destination, but until I was recently trapped in a guest house (and had gotten bored with other reading material) I had never once picked up a guidebook. Like you said, I'll be the judge of whether a place is fantastic.
In that vein, Lonely Planet had some very candid and deep assessments of Guatemala and Jamaica, going as far as to point out the Jamaicans general lack of tolerance for homosexuals and Guatemala's lack of "memorable" cuisine. Unfortunately, I think the tourism industry watches those guidebooks too closely. As soon as it's "found", the charm that the author may have found is gone, replaced with a sort of guidebook fame.
On that note, we're lucky to be freelancers and habitual travelers. The rest of the unfortunate world has 2 weeks to "discover" something "exotic". That's without mandatory visits to family, possible demands from the kids, and the hope that they have a job that gives two weeks of vacation (I once work a job where I earned 3.25 hours every two weeks...every month an a half, I could take a day off) At BEST, the average Joe gets 2 weeks--and unfortunately, they are the bread and butter of travel money. They're not marketing to schmucks like you, me, Eva, Tim, David, Ben, etc., etc. And thank god.
-JB
"Seriousness is stupidity sent to college." -P.J. O'Rourke
Perpetual Nomads
All good points.
The New York Times isn't pitching to us either... almost all of the "top" destinations for next year were identified as being attractive because of some luxury resort, spa, hotel, or package tour.
I guess we have to settle for Matador--and each other.
I'll take that! And I'll be a satisfied customer, too. :)
J
Hey Julie, great post!
World Hum posted an interesting item this week about the changes in the guidebook industry, and how they used to be written by one author who had substantial regional expertise, and who would do the updates on each new edition, but now are written by a large crew that changes with each round of updates. It's here: http://www.worldhum.com/weblog/item/death_of_a_guidebook_20071211/
I really like your point about not wanting to be convinced of the fabulousness of a place! I agree with you about the mainstream travel mags (and the Times travel section, which is often disappointingly predictable in an otherwise excellent paper) but I've always enjoyed reading guide books. I only ever read Lonely Planet or Rough Guides though and they tend to stay away from resorts, Marriott hotels, etc. And I take them with a grain of salt. I remember I used to read a lot of the "World Guide" items on Lonely Planet's website, just for fun when I was bored and planning imaginary trips, and every place I read about sounded so fabulous, I started to get really cynical about the whole thing. Then I clicked on "Guam" one day, and the write-up was literally two lines. The way I remember it, it went: "The only reason to visit Guam is to go duty-free shopping. If you have other interests, look elsewhere." After that I took the rave reviews more seriously!
Eva, I liked Jason Wilson's point that you brought up in Tales from the Road the other day, about how the best travel writing, and best travel experiences, are inherently unique and can't be replicated.
Tim-
That's one of the points I wanted to convey in my post. When I was an educational tour director I had at least one comment on every trip when someone would say "But the brochure [or guide book or some other promise of pleasure and joy] didn't say that!" I had so many fantasy responses to that statement.
Eva-
Thanks for the feedback and for posting the item from World Hum; I read it and then clicked on the Rolf Pots interview... interesting material. I think that the Internet has definitely changed a great deal about travel writing. On the one hand, I can see how the original travel guide writers feel frustrated by the fact that more up-to-date and comprehensive, accessible (and free!) information is available online. On the other hand, I think that there are quite a few companies that were guide book leaders which have refashioned themselves into a major internet presence (especially Lonely Planet) and have lost some of the elements of what made the guides both useful and unique. I used to read Lonely Planet's Thorn Tree for some helpful tips. It was recently bought out if I understand correctly, and members on one thread were howling the other day about the recent changes made on the website. I agree... it's no longer user-friendly at all, though it was never as intuitive and visually appealing as Matador. It will be interesting to see how all this develops.