(no subject)

[randomness]

A couple of nights ago persis observed that when I write about going to places it's not with a feeling of that I've been there, done that, cross that off the list. Instead it's clear in my posts that I have every intention of going back.

I had a conversation with a guy from San Diego at Iguazu Falls during which I mentioned I was checking things out for next time. "You're coming back here?" he asked. He told me he generally didn't go back to places after he'd visited them.

While there are places I find don't like, I do try to give them a chance later. They just drop farther down the priority list. And when I have bad experiences I try not to repeat them. It's true though that the idea of a "once in a lifetime trip" is alien to me. If I like a place, why wouldn't I plan to go back? Travel is easy nowadays, and getting easier every year.

It does depend on what your motivation for going places is.

Comments

[redbird]

It's not so much that I check things off, as that there are a few places I keep going because of the people, and when I have travel time/money/energy beyond that, I am thinking in terms of seeing something new. (If I didn't have the long-distance relationships shaping how I travel, I might well be going back to other places.)

[randomness]

Mostly his attitude seemed to be that he couldn't understand why someone would return to a far-away place once one had been there.

My travel has definitely affected my relationships. And vice-versa.

[redbird]

Yes, that's weird: if I was as much of a homebody as that guy's attitude suggests, I wouldn't travel recreationally in the first place.

[randomness]

He didn't strike me so much as a homebody as someone who was looking to cross places off on a list.

[irielle.livejournal.com]

It can also depend on how much time and money you have for travel. Anton and I tend to half heartedly joke that most of the people who have the time to travel, don't have the money, and vice versa. It sure helps if the places on your priority list are less expensive ones, but airfares from our neck of the woods are pretty outrageous since Delta has such a stranglehold up here.

A pre-emptive disclaimer: I don't stay in posh resorts or anything like that. My hotels of choice in London tend to be frumpy but clean and inexpensive ones. In the U.S. I stay with family or go budget, except for conferences.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

It can also depend on how much time and money you have for travel. Anton and I tend to half heartedly joke that most of the people who have the time to travel, don't have the money, and vice versa.

Definitely. I think of it as a variation on the project management triangle of "Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick two." In this case, the constraints are money, time, and health. Young people have time and health, but no money. Middle-aged people have money and health, but no time. Old people have money and time, but no health.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I think the big difference for most people is time. There are so many places I would love to return to--and do--but it's generally at the cost of not going somewhere new. And we are less limited than most people by time, although we've now entered school-calendar land. But most people have 2-3 weeks of vacation time per year, of which some is often absorbed by visiting family. So figure that most US travelers are going to pick one destination per year, at most. At that rate, their choices become much more high stakes than yours.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

But most people have 2-3 weeks of vacation time per year, of which some is often absorbed by visiting family.

Insert rant about American (and Japanese) corporate vacation policy here. I'll spare you.

At that rate, their choices become much more high stakes than yours.

Sure, which also most likely explains why so many of the Americans I saw on vacation in Aruba were cranky. And I get that. But these are still choices.

I do understand the choices I've made are not ones most Americans choose to make, but I do wonder whether how many even consider that they're in the available decision space.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

I do wonder whether how many even consider that they're in the available decision space.

In my experience, very few.

Just today, in reading an advice column, I watched the author trying to say "you can choose not to have any attendants" and getting a whole lot of "no, I can't" back. Different decision space, but the same sense of entrapment that's frustrating across the board.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Thinking about it, I realize all of this is a sidetrack from what I was thinking when I posted.

I understand "can't go back". I do think it's interesting that commenters have concentrated on explaining why they can't go back to places. There's a lot to be said about both the point itself and why lack of time is such a compelling issue for Americans. But I realize now that's a quite different question from what I was posting about.

What inspired me to post was the "won't go back" attitude. The guy I mentioned--knowledge worker, evidently single from his reaction to my talking about my girlfriend, late-20s or early-30s, from San Diego but now living and working in New York--said words to the effect of "Why would you go back to a place if you've already been there?" and was somewhat baffled at my treating my trip as an extended scouting mission for the trip I'll be taking later. As I described him to redbird in a dreamwidth comment thread, I got the distinct impression of a guy who was looking to check off "must see" sights; once checked off, there were plenty of other "must see" sights on the list that needed to be checked off.

I mean, sure. It's a thing, and people get to choose their thing. Perhaps he won't feel that way when he's not 29. Iguazu Falls is certainly a place which features on a lot of "must see" lists, so finding someone who approaches travel that way in that place is no surprise. And I'm sure I'm not drawing him with even the nuance one might muster from a single acquaintance.

But he wasn't really alone in that attitude. There are plenty of "Places to see before you die" books out nowadays. For persis to have remarked on my attitude as being distinctive as well--the two together struck me as postworthy.

TLDR: His bucket list checkbox approach to travel struck me as odd, but I'm thinking now I'm probably the odd one out.

[irielle.livejournal.com]

When I talked about limits in terms of time versus money, I wasn't arguing against visiting places more than once. I was just trying to come up with a reason why Americans tend to feel that way. I am one of those Americans generally going on one or two trips a year, and if it's two then one of them is to visit family generally in a place I wouldn't visit if they weren't living there. So every time I choose to re-visit someplace I love like England, then I do so giving up a chance to visit someplace new instead. I try to balance that by trying to visit a new town when I'm over there, or one time I made a day trip via Eurostar to Paris. Kindof a sneak peek at a place where I'd like to spend more time someday.

You have a good point about the list of books filled with places you must see before you die. My idea of a good trip though is to spend plenty of time somewhere rather than checking off places and sights from some list.

I think I experienced something similar when I first heard people talk about never reading a book more than once. I think I would have really missed out if I'd been like that. Old favorites can be so comforting, and the same book can be different at different points in your life. Jane Eyre at 9 years old was not same as at 40. There are some people who can't read a book more than once and some who can't be bothered to visit someplace more than once. I don't want to judge them just because it's different than the way I am. It's certainly a more adventurous viewpoint in terms of the travel at least.

You mentioned making decisions in your life which enabled you to travel more. Actually those weren't the words you used, but that's what I understood. Would you feel comfortable sharing more of your thoughts on that? I think it would be inspiring.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

When I talked about limits in terms of time versus money, I wasn't arguing against visiting places more than once. I was just trying to come up with a reason why Americans tend to feel that way.

Oh, I didn't think you were!

I think I experienced something similar when I first heard people talk about never reading a book more than once.

Yeah, that's also not me, although I will say there are many more books than places I'm not particularly interested in revisiting.

Would you feel comfortable sharing more of your thoughts on that? I think it would be inspiring.

I don't know if "inspiring" is the word I'd use. "Complicated", perhaps. Or "tradeoffs". But I'll be glad to put something together in email and send it to you personally.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

I think you also enjoy watching a place change over time, which is not something you can really do if you only visit a place once.

The answer to "If I like a place, why wouldn't I go back?" is a combination of "What if you like a new place better?" and "What if you liked it, but didn't consider it worth the money/time/effort to go back?" It's not about having a lack of money, even folks with plenty of money have to make tradeoffs and have to have a sense of what is a "waste" of money and what's worth doing again. Some folks don't like planning travel, or liked it but wouldn't want another 14-hour flight like the last time.

Personally, I used to think that expensive trips were once-in-a-lifetime, but now I take it as "if I really want to I can save the money to do it". I'm in Australia now and I was thinking of maybe visiting the Great Barrier Reef, because who knows how long it will be around for? I do intend to come back to Australia, but it may be 10 years before I do, and by then the opportunity may be gone. It's the nature of things, places do change. Then again, I'm not one for the OMG PLACES YOU NEED TO SEE BEFORE YOU DIE lists either. I'm more interested in walking around a city and keeping my eyes open to how things are working (I'm always curious to see how/if pedestrians jaywalk, if cars run the red lights or even jump the gun on the red+yellow lights), than seeing "the sights".

My motivation for travel is "to have fun" - it's not about checking off boxes on a list, it's about enjoying myself, without pressure.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I'm more interested in walking around a city and keeping my eyes open to how things are working (I'm always curious to see how/if pedestrians jaywalk, if cars run the red lights or even jump the gun on the red+yellow lights), than seeing "the sights".

I'm totally with you there. When I'm alone that's the sort of observation I do, as there are plenty of people I travel with who like seeing the sights.

I don't mind seeing the sights but there are many people I would bore with my wanderings, so when I'm with others who want to see the sights I save that experience to have with them.