Quote:
Originally Posted by g6snl
My question was more regarding the feeling that I have "already been there" due largely to the research I suppose: thanks to the internet you can "see" it all with out being there. ( not literally all .........obviously that would be ridiculous on my slow broadband )
.......
there may be occasions when I visit something and it isn't quite as breathtaking as I expected, due to, too much " research" .......perhaps?
|
This aspect of travel is explored quite philosophically in the book 'Skating to Antarctica'. (Jenny Diski, available secondhand for a couple of pounds).
It's autobiographical about the author's early life, and a package trip she did to Antarctica much later.
She has deep discussions with her daughter about whether or not to take a camera to Antarctica, arguing somewhat persuasively that to bring back photos of places you visit only distorts your own inner memories of those places.
Also, about how the actions of over-enthusiastic photo-snappers can affect the enjoyment of other visitors.
She then expands that argument into suggesting you should never look at pictures of any distant places that you may visit one day, because when you get there you won't be truly seeing the place for the first time. Do your research from text only, no photos. A bit difficult to do, as she discusses, and asks the OP's question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by g6snl
It may pose the question whether you need go at all?
|
Interesting stuff if you're thinking about what research to do before going places.
(If you consider buying this book, the discussions I mention above only comprise about 3 or 4 pages in all, but are still pretty interesting despite that).
|