willit

A recent thread on spending a few hours each in a number of foreign cities reminded me of a trip a friend made to London.

I live in the UK, and friends of ours came to visit for a few days. They wanted to go to London. We went, but were quite surprised by their attitude. It seemed that the entire purpose was to collect photographs of landmarks - Them in front of Tower Bridge, in front of Buck House, in front of Nelsons column etc.

At no time did they seem to want to visit anything : St Pauls, the Tate, Victoria and Albert were all ignored.

Everybody has different ideas of what constitutes a trip. These friends had proof that they had "seen London" , but I don't think they saw anything at all. Am I being overly judgemental and snobbish ?

degas

Yes you being very snobbish and over judgemental.

Those poor hicks were only doing what the boob tube has programmed them to do. The whole point of travel is to take loads of over or under exposed blurry shots of famous places so you can race back to the USA and brag to all your relatives and friends down at Walmart.

Couple that with a dozen or so cute stories about how funny things are over the pond and then you become a "travel God" in the wide-eyes of the unwashed masses.

PatrickLondon

Surely Walmart check that their customers have washed behind their ears before they're allowed in?

degas

Seriously, most casual travelers don't study up prior to a trip. The default approach is one that is a "mile wide and an inch deep." It is a shame, but
more power to them if that is what they enjoy.

Nikki

You're asking the wrong questions. Did your friends have a good time? Did they accomplish things they had looked forward to doing? Did they enjoy their visit with you outside London? If so, sounds like a great trip for them.

Curt

Patrick, it is the car parks at Walmart that are unwashed....

Voyager2006

I totally agree with Nikki. Would you rather we discuss their views of YOUR travel requirements and behavior which they might feel is a "total waste of time."

You may, or may not, consider the fact that they included even included you at all as either a compliment or a curse.

Simone1

Different strokes for different folks. I have met so many people that have been a couple of days in London, a few days in Paris and Rome and they consider themselves world travelers.

I remember my first trip to Europe. I had a three-month Eurail pass. I whizzed by every city and town, saw every museum and sight that needed to be seen. I had a blast. Of course, everything was sort of blurry, but I had seen it all. I can’t say that I regret having done it that way. It laid a foundation and opened a wide horizon that led to a lifetime of thirst for travel.

AuntAnnie

I am travelling to Boston for a week to soak up some history and seafood. Reading the guidebooks I am thinking I could fill a month. My Aunt then wonders "What will you do there for a WHOLE WEEK??" Neither philosophy is wrong, but I know I don't want my Aunt as my travelling companion. I love to park in a great locale and spend at least a week.

JSLee

Regretfully some people only wish to "see" the sights and not experiance them fully.

That is why I do not like organized tours. 14 days and see 5 countries; you see a lot, but out the window as it goes by. Rush, rush, and come back exhausted.

If your friends did not have time, the photos were ok. But, with a few days I would think they could have expolered London better.

HowardR

It's one thing to say that you would not travel "that" way. But, who are you to tell someone else that he/she is wrong to do it his/her way?

crefloors

I didn't take the post as being judgemental especially, just curious. On my first trip to Europe, well, it was kind of on a whim..my brother and SIL were going on a tour and as we talked about it, the price etc, I just decided to go..no research, nothin'. I actually did my research after I got back home. I bought books, for example..when we visited St. Pauls, I got a book in the gift shop and also the Tower of London. I did know more about the Tower...but anyway, I read them cover to cover after I got home and I found it was really terrific. I was much more interested in learning more about the places and it meant more to me I think after actually being there. People travel for different reasons I guess. My parents had some friends who did a Europe trip and came home complaining about and hating everything about it. There was also a couple just like them on our tour..just hated everything. The good thing though for you all who live in Europe, those people will NEVER come back!!!!! I guess if someone has the time and money, they can just collect stamps in your passport and brag to all their friends about all the places they have "seen".

rex

Yes, you are being judgmental and snobbish... in the prescribed "Euro-dites" way.

Most people visit the zoo the same way - - do they really learn anything about ungulates as a group? Do "we" (pedants) think we have the vastly superior experience because we knowx or y or z about the axolotls? or the different illness the tamarins and marmosets get in captivity?

Why do "we" care if any one travels to Europe or what "they" get out of it? Even the "picture takers" sleep in hotels somewhere, and get exposed to some different kinds of plumbing, currency, breakfast foods and postage stamps.

Some of us are not content until we can draw the imaginary line that separates the Occitan speakers from the French Catalunyans... others learn something, figuring out which countries use the euro and which still have their pounds, francs (CH), lira (Turkey) and zlotys.

Come to Indiana, willit... some will say you haven't experienced our state until you've had a brains sandwich in Evansville, been to the Little 500 in Bloomington, enjoyed some blackberry wine in Starlight, or gazed in wonder at "Touchdown Jesus" in South Bend.

Others will say they can't think of a single "photo opportunity" between Chicago and Atlanta!

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...

Best wishes,

Rex

FainaAgain

"Everybody has different ideas of what constitutes a trip" - you've answered your own question!

Sometimes I'm ready to scream when I see posts like "going to San Francisco, where can I eat, how can I get to the Wine Country" - when I know how much more my city has to offer!

No, you're not snobbish, just different from the "DisneyWorld crowd".

mr_go

I tend not to think of it in terms of a dichotomy (slow travelers vs. snap-shooters), but as a continuum. Everyone's individual travel style falls somewhere along that broad line. And while my own typical mode of travel (I'm somewhere in the middle) may not work for you...well, that's why they sell chicken in parts.

Wayne

Well spoken, mr go. We travel in order to satisfy our individual travel needs and desires -- not someone else's. If a traveler wishes to "snap and go," versus "stay and absorb," that's his/her business. It would be a boring world if we all liked the same things.

milliondollarbbw

Everyone's view on travel is different. I think that was a lot of people may not understand, is that for many travelers, they do not have a lot of time. Many of us only get certain amounts of vacation time, and have a limited budget.

For me, personally, I would like to at least see a few different places and their sites rather than visit just one place for a long period of time.

Of course, if I had longer time to travel and money, then yes, I would spend more time in each place.

I think it is important if the person is happy....many people love taking photos...others do not.

The better question should be if they had a good time and if they want to return...not wether it is a wrong or right way to travel.