wes fowler

I notice that with the approaching end of the vacation season, the queries to Fodor's forum are lessening, both in number and in the challenges the questions pose. I thought I might pose a question or two to stimulate some dialogues (no diatribes, please. I remember the posting of Ray and his observation about what slobs American tourists are). I've been mulling over a thought or two during the past few months. I've been a reader of queries for about six months and a sometimes helpful contributor (I hope) for the last three months or so. I sense there are two types of European adventurers: the tourist and the traveller. The tourist comes in a variety of types, all of whom have one thing in common. There's the whirlwind who tries to cover as many countries and cities as possible in a limited period of time for whatever reward that type of travel offers. There's the individual who visits the Louvre or the Tower of London or the Jungfrau because they're there and he can then say "been there, done that". There's the individual who seems threatened by strange languages and customs, and looks for comfort in homelike accommodations in close proximity to the sights to be seen. The commonality of these types seems to be that they are satisfied in seeing "things" rather than in participating in the life of the cities and countries they visit. I sense that the traveller is different. He may once have been a tourist but has come to recognize that a trip to Europe need not be a once in a life time adventure but can instead be an introduction and subsequent exposure to fascinating and novel cultures, languages, art and history. The first European trip becomes a stimulus to explore the intangibles of European culture and life styles. Monuments and edifices may be important to him because of the historic significance they may hold but the traveller is primarily captivated by and fascinated with the peoples and their life styles that he actively seeks out, encounters and attempts to learn from. Do you see a distinction in types of adventurers? Is it the same perception as mine? What's your opinion?

ilisa

I once read that a tourist is a person who has certain expectations and ideas about a destination, and goes places to confirm those expectations. However, a traveller has no expectations or pre-set ideas, and travels to learn. I have found that to be a fairly accurate assessment. Excellent question, Wes! (and yes, you have been an excellent contributor!) <BR>

Richard

Wes, You're a wordy fellow but I enjoy reading your posts. My wife and I were once tourists but now consider ourselves travellers because we almost exclusively travel in Europe via bicycle. We have been to about every country in Europe, but after our first bike excursion realized we had not really BEEN to any of them. I won't expound on the amazement of Europeans to see seniors (60 and 51) touring on bikes, but they really open up when they find out we're American and going solo, no tour group, pre-arranged lodging, etc. <BR>

Roger

Hi Wes. I think that I am the typical American tourist. Each year my wife and I plan a return trip to Great Britain. We enjoy the country, people and the many different sights. However, we like the comfort of speaking English, knowing the train system and more or less what to expect. We have never regreted in going but seem to have gotten into a rut. We do not want to do tours but frankly are not ready to just pop over to Europe. Perhaps this is due to starting foreign travel at a later age than many. Never the less, looking forward to the sights of Scotland and Wales in the Spring. Will take the train directly to Scotland from London. Will not spend any time in London or Southern England this trip. Perhaps some day we will become travelers. <BR>

MIke Shaw

Wes, <BR> <BR>Kudos to you for your question and past answers in this forum. Traveller vs tourist? I suppose the term "tourist" can be broken down into, shall we say, "ugly" and "nice" tourist. The "ugly" a tourist is one who expects things to be "like home" (language, food, currency, hotels...) The "nice" tourist wants to see all of the main sites because of time limitations, being on a tour, etc... However, he differs in that he is open to the fact that things will be different, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but no one "culture" is better or worse. My first trip to Europe was a whirlwind 9 countries in 21 days...it was fabulous, I saw all of the sites I had always heard about, and a bit of culture was transferred. What it did spur me on to do, however, was to go back to Europe many times since, having gotten over the fear that travelling over there was an insurmountable obstacle. I have taken my parents over there a few times, and have tried to blend the tourist with the traveller...you see the known sites, to try to understand why they are a "main tourist attraction", but you also blend in the local charm: stay at a B&B, rent a car for the trip, go for walks in the city/countryside, find a recommended restaurant, go to a local festival.. I'd like to think I've mastered the tourist thing,and with many more trips to Europe will someday become a traveller! What I have realized is that there is sooo much to see over there, even places where I've been many times....now if I could only win that lottery..... <BR> <BR>Back to you!

Caryn

Wes: yes, you have been a very helpful and insightful contributor. And I've noticed that you very often get to the message and reply first! I believe that a tourist goes somewhere to see the sights. They may experience and absorb some of the culture. But they are probably uncomfortable with the language barrier, prefer to stay in mainstream hotels in the mainstream areas, take more taxis rather than figure out the local buses or metro, packs too much and brings a HUGE or several suitcases, shops in the department stores such as Printemps which offers discounts to Americans and can now actually be found in America, doesn't set foot in the local market, compares the local currency to "Monopoly money," goes to the Tie Rack or Body Shop because they are familiar (but not actually American stores), etc. A traveller does all the opposite and is willing to "get dirty." I guess I've been harsh, but we shouldn't travel and try not to leave home at the same time.

dan

I love this question. I hadn't really formulated this into exactly those words, but my wife and I have always felt that we were somehow different than the normal tourists. There is nothing wrong with being a tourist in most cases, but I do prefer to be a traveller. I think one of the best places to see the difference is in resort areas like Cancun, Mexico. Tourists stay on the beaches and take first class buses to Chichen Itza. Travellers take many second class buses through local villages and visit far-reaching parts of the Yucatan. <BR> <BR>I do feel that the main distinction is in trying to learn about the culture; trying to understand and appreciate its differences from ours instead of criticizing those differences. <BR> <BR>I don't think that amount of time spent somewhere is necessarily a defining point. Some people just have more opportunities to travel and have more vacation time. I am into photography, so I like to get around a lot. This does not mean that I won't devote time to a place. I never like to stay anywhere for less than two days and give up to a week to places like Paris. <BR> <BR>I agree that what you try to see is also a defining point. If in Paris, and you only care about seeing the Louvre, Notre-Dame, the Arc, the Eiffel Tower, etc. you may be a tourist. I believe the traveller wants to go beyond that and see places like Ile-St-Louis and some of the smaller museums, as well as residential areas. <BR> <BR>I think a huge difference is that many "tourists" want to spend time around other tourists, while the traveller wants to do just the opposite and immerse himself among locals. <BR>

Arizona

Traveler or tourist -- to many, this is a distinction without a difference. If one constantly compares what he or she is seeing with what is "back home" I would say that person is a tourist. If one see new things through new eyes and says, "yes, I have learned something," then that person is a traveler.

Robin

Wes, while your question is compelling, it is important to that tourists/travellers understand that both are within us all. Who in their right mind would travel so many hours on a crowded, stuffy plane and not see many of the sights which have led us to this destination in the first place? Many first time tourist/travellers are more likely to seek places of comfort and familiarity. As one becomes more "worldly" the ability to relax and to take those first tenetive steps into local culture become easier. I enliken it to the discoveries of children. That first taste of ice cream, learning to ride a bike. A bit scary at first but once you realize the rewards of a whole new world opening, you tend to move to the side of traveler. So, have the best of both worlds. Be a tourist see all the places you've read about, dreamed about, studied. Open your mind and your heart to the people and the culture. It's like having whipped cream and cherries on that ice cream and rainbow streamers on that bike. You CAN be both and enjoy the riches each bring.

Meg

I responded yesterday, but there seems to be a problem with my posts the last few days. If this is duplicated on your board, please excuse. <BR> <BR>I think this a great topic. My husband and I quit considering ourselves tourists after our first European trip together. For our honeymoon, we booked a Delta Dream Vacation to Paris - mainly for the convenience of having everything arranged (Parisvision city tour, metro card, museum card, airport transfers, etc.) Our next trip, we booked entirely on our own. We stayed at small European hotels (we dislike chains and big glitzy hotels), travelled by train the entire time, ate at street vendor stalls, and tried to limit our daily itinerary so that we would have time to wander. We had the best time just discovering interesting people and places on a side street that no one had ever heard of. We always try to read as much as we can about local food and customs and try to blend in as much as possible. We avoid any type of organized tours and try to eat as much local food as possible. I must admit, though, that on our recent trip to Asia, by the end of the week, a Burger King combo really hit the spot. Our trip to Asia was our biggest test so far. We made all our own plans on the internet and had a ball. We did see all the major temples and tourist sights, but always on our own. No matter where we have been, we have always been treated with friendship and more help from the locals than we ever imagined possible - even in Paris where the reputation for being rude is totally unfounded in our opinion. I think the major difference between a tourist and a traveller is that a tourist wants to go somewhere specific and do specific things whereas a traveller can go anywhere and experience whatever presents itself and be totally satsified with the trip. A traveller is not concerned with staying at the "best" place or in the "best" location - a true traveller knows that the truly BEST things are not always found on a tour itinerary or in a guidebook. Thanks for the original post.

hamlet

I agree with these distinctions between tourists and travellers. But I think in some cases a tourist evolves into a traveller, for others a tourist is one thing and traveller is another and they will forever remain separate. This is all influenced by other factors that may have nothing to do with the interest to tour and travel - such as financial, time and family constraints. There's nothing wrong with being either, although those of us who consider ourselves travellers may frown upon simple tourist attitudes just because we think they're missing out on so much more. It's important to tour......This question makes me wonder why some of us are so eager to be travellers in foreign lands, but have never toured our own backyards. Why is it that there are NYers who have never admired the city from the World Trade Center or don't take advantage of the culture the city just 10 miles away has to offer? Why have my Neapolitan friends never visited Pompeii? Does familiarity and proximity breed indifference? Oops, I think I'm off on another topic...

Neal Sanders

Tourists versus travelers, huh? Wes, you have a gift for coming up with thought-provoking topics. Herewith, some random comments: <BR> <BR>I know the world is filled with tourists, because I see and hear them wherever I go. "Whaddya think that place is, Harry?" are words that have made me cringe all over the world, and the language in which those words are spoken does not automatically have to be English with an American accent. It is the cry of the camera-toting boor and it comes in every nationality. These people are perfectly capable of mis-identifying the Madeleine as Notre Dame; and of confidently telling one another that the statue above Trafalgar Square is Winston Churchill. <BR> <BR>I don't believe that being part of a tour group automatically makes you a tourist. I think of Arizona Al up above, who travels as part of a group because of physical limitations. From everything I've read that Al has written, he strikes me as the quintessential traveler. Nor do I believe that seeking out a comfortable hotel automatically brands you with a scarlet "T" (for tourist). If staying in small drafty rooms with lumpy mattresses and on-again-off-again hot water are prerequisites to being a traveler, then I guess I'll just have to settle for being a tourist. <BR> <BR>Conversely, someone will have to convince me that one can be a traveler without having a good grasp of the language of the country you're visiting. If you're limited to English-speaking resources in Spain, Hungary, Italy, etc., are you really partaking of the local culture? I will grant an automatic exemption to that rule to anyone who journeys by bicycle or by foot. Seeing the world at five miles per hour makes one a traveler whether they want to be one or not. <BR> <BR>And I believe you can be a traveler and still get homesick. Some years ago, my wife and I spent three weeks in Australia. We were really good travelers for the first ten days. But on a Saturday morning, we awakened and wanted very much to be home. And so, we had an "America Day," lunching at McDonalds, buying a "Time" magazine, having ice cream at Baskin-Robbins, and going to a theater and seeing "Saturday Night Fever." By Sunday morning, we were back to being travelers. <BR> <BR>Finally, it may take a second trip somewhere to qualify for traveler status. If you've never been to London, Paris, Athens, or Berlin, how can you not spend that first week just seeing all of the stuff you've read about all of your life? Sometimes, it's OK to be a tourist. <BR> <BR>

George Holt

No, you don't have to have a grasp of the local language to be 'traveller' in a country. Its fair to say that in the early eighties a friend and I 'travelled' round Turkey, we took local long distance coaches and booked into cheap hotels we found at each stop. We didn't have a word of Turkish between us. Its amazing how much you can get done with a smile, some sign language and pointing in a basic phrasebook. Of course we were helped every step of the way by friendly locals who often went out of their way to help us with what limited english they had. As an example we started in Istanbul and had decided our next stop was Antalya or thereabouts, we'd gone off the idea of eighteen hours on a coach and wandered into a travel agengy to book a flight. We 'discussed' timetables, dates etc. and only fell at the final fence when the agency didn't take travel cheques and the bank was closed. Eventually the hotel desk organised tickets, but only because we could pay them in cheques. After Antalya we worked our way back up to Istanbul booking coaches and rooms and eating out all the way. Of course by the time we got back to Istanbul we could say 'please' (incorrectly as it happens but the Turks love you for trying!) and knew the Turkish for tea and beer. You need much language after all you're travelling there not living there. <BR> <BR>Since then I've taken some Turkish lessons but nowadaays I tend to tour with a group simply because its easy, they go where I want to see and they cover a lot of ground in a short time. In some ways I don't consider I travel less, I still like to know where I am, where I'm going and what I'll see and I do research beforhand to make the most of the tour. <BR> <BR>I think you need to beware of seeing some idyll of a country rather than the real country. Smelly, noisy, bustling capitals with famous sights are part of the real country. If you never visit them you are missing part of the colour of the country. <BR> <BR>Oh, and its not Home if you don't miss it while you're away. If you can travel for any length of time and not miss home, beware, you may not be a 'traveller' but have become some kind of nomad.

wes fowler

Comments in response to my query have been so interesting I thought I'd resurrect it and bring it to the top once again.

Dave Olim

A tourist is someone who wants to go someplace just to see what everyone else sees. A traveller is someone who will go anyplace because it is there - and the more out of the way the place is, the better. It is the thrill of being in some weird place that very few people have ever been to, and experiencing the sights, sounds, feelings, and cultures that most people could not imagine. A traveller wants to see the world.

Cheryl Z.

<BR>I've pondered how to answer this interesting query since I first read it, as I believe I'm both, (as I believe most of us are.) If one is to take a simple dictionary meaning - a tourist is one who takes a tour for pleasure, and a traveller is going from place to place. It makes it sound better to be a tourist! <BR>I think it is the "tourist" in us that gives us the driving force and the desire to experience the unique, that turns us into the true traveller. <BR>This topic reminds me of a series of essays on Frommer's website which some of you may enjoy reading if you haven't already done so- many <BR> different and thought provoking subjects.

globalbum

A traveller will spend 3 hours sitting at an outdoor cafe taking in the local color. A tourist won't because there are too many other things to see. <BR>

Lee

This has been a very good question with many good responses. <BR> <BR>I believe there is a somewhat gray area between "tourist" and "traveller". <BR> <BR>I think of the "tourist" as someone who goes somewhere in a group and samples the local customs and sights, but does so on a limited basis, with many constraints regarding time, destination, etc. They go there to get out of the house and maybe tell family and friends "Hey, I've been there!". They can't wait to get home. <BR> <BR>The "traveller" goes to some specific place or places, much on his or her own to get an honest sample of the culture and learn from this experience. <BR> <BR>There is also the gray area. This is that person that "tours" places, but does so on their own by making all of their own plans, itinerary, reservations and schedule by themselves and with some help from the good people on this forum, for example. Call them the "travellist" <BR> <BR>When we go, we choose all of our own destinations and the means to get to and from. Yes, I take my camera and have brought back some beautiful (to my eye, at least) photographs to capture these memories. We try to blend in, mingle, see, learn and take something with us when we leave, even if it's just experience. <BR> <BR>We are not Lewis and Clark, but we are not the "Harry, look at this!" type, either. <BR> <BR>I've had an opportunity to live and work in Germany for nearly three years, but now I venture back to take my wife and see with her those things that she has not seen. We're having a blast with our once or twice-a-year trips. <BR> <BR>Camera and map in hand, I plan yet again! Call us whatever, but are seeing the world in a way that works for us. <BR> <BR>Say what we want, but at least "Harry" is getting off of the sofa and out of the house. <BR> <BR>Happy travels! <BR>Lee Simmons <BR>

Glenn

After reading all the responses and thinking about the question there seems to be agreement about the traveler or tourist. The traveler goes to experience the people and culture of the destination. The purpose is not just to see the building but to learn about the history and why it was/is so important to the people of that country. Just as we in America admire the Statue of Liberty, we know it is more than just a <BR>big green lady out in the harbor. It has value to us beyond something to go see on a weekend. I think that the traveller tries to apply the same idea where ever they may go. They want to be part of the local culture and experience life in that country. That is usually best done by meeting the locals and eating where they eat, sleeping in rooms or small local hotels. They try the local food not the McDonalds or the tourist fare set up certain hotels for visitors. They want to experience the difference. The idea of a "cookie cutter" Holiday Inn all around the world is not what they came for. The language barrier becomes an opportunity, not a problem. When I was in Germany this summer, I felt insulted when I was spoken to in English without an attempt to speak German to me first. I felt that I deserved the chance to try it in German and my German wouldn't get any better by speaking English. I do not have a great command of the language and I would struggle daily, but the satisfaction and the fun of understanding each other made it worth while. I feel that the time spent is not a big factor. If you know it may be years before you ever get back, you may want to try to experience as many different places as possible. The quality of the experience may not be as fulfilling if more time was spent in that spot. Who hasn't learned about a local custom and thought how great it would be to observe back home. The travler comes home with more than just photos or souveniers, the have learned and appreciate the meaning of what they have seen.

Yvonne

A "travellist" , I like that. <BR> <BR>You know, most of our time here on this small planet is spent between major events/occasions. It's sort of like those annual school portraits we took as kids. Sure you look all spiffy (except for the year someone mussed your hair just before you said "cheese") but for the other 364 days of the year you look anything but. <BR>The tourist (due to lack of time, desire or knowledge) lives in the major time, scurries to all of the must sees (I know I've been on line as one of them), while the traveler's focus is more toward on the day to day living. The tourist will come home with the knowledge of what it's like to visit a spot, while the traveler may come home with the understanding of what it's like to live in that destination. As a travellist I come home with both the spiffy photos of Mona, "there I am in front of the Eiffel tower", and stories of the locals (beyond the ticket takers) with whom I interacted. <BR> <BR> I can hardly wait for the next provocative posting. <BR>