newtome

My DH and I were talking today about our various travels – US, Canada, Europe, New Zealand – and we realize that aside from the Eiffel Tower, British Museum, St. Paul's Cathedral, and a couple of other sites we absolutely do not focus on "must sees" when we travel. Yet in our reminisces today, we realize we have had so much enjoyment from finding strange little restaurants or tiny museums or shops that we don't remember the names of, and that some may even be close, but those of always been the highlights of any trip we've taken. So for those who worry about what are the "must sees" of any given trip – don't worry about it. You'll find your own "must sees" and they will be the best memories of any travels.

IMDonehere

There is reverse snobbery in rejecting the "must sees" without considering each one.

Of course, like everything else, it is a matter of taste. For us the Effiel Tower, Leaning Tower, and the changing of the guard in London are a waste of time. But the Alhambra, Louvre, and British Museum were wonderful and edifying visits.

We all have our own finds as well, but one should not ignore sites just because, those palces could make a trip more satisfying.

MmePerdu

For me, it isn't so much "must see" or otherwise. It seems to be a matter of scale. I like things smaller and personal. For instance, the grand gardens in England are beautiful, no doubt, but I find myself most remembering the gardens of individuals on days they open for charity around the countryside, meeting the gardeners and, like a work of art, seeing a single person's expression.

Or the modest house a famous person once called home and I can imagine living there. Don't get me wrong, I love the palaces too, but my preference is for the cozy. Outdoor monuments don't do much for me so that seems to eliminate quite a few "musts" and since I avoid crowds, there go another bunch.

Famous landmarks may serve as good introductions to a city or country, gets us there & out & about and if we have enough time or another trip, that may be when most of us begin to see things not in the guidebooks. It just takes time and we're lucky if we have it.

Whathello

Good for you !

Robert2533

Reverse snobbery, perfect fit!

tonfromleiden

Snobbish or not, there is an inherent satisfaction having »discovered« something special. The famous landmarks can turn out to be less impressive than imagined.

sandralist

There is nothing snobbish in the OP's post. It is kindly advice to people who are worrying ahead of their trip that their trip (or they themselves) will be a failure if they end up not seeing what other people have defined as "must sees".

One of the thing the "must see" advocates often don't appreciate is that for many, many people, "seeing" is really not the only sensual travel pleasure, or even the strongest attraction. It's actually funny that visiting historic or scenice sites got turned into the word "sightseeing", almost doubling down on the idea that if you travel, the main point is to gawk at things, the more freakish the better. (Did this notion arise with the development of photography?)

But there is a substantial number of people who are just not motivated or moved by that, and their engagement with travel -- as the OP describes -- starts from a different inner premise and has an entirely different set of rewards. If you are that kind of traveler, you recognize pretty early on that you are different.

Groupthink (and vested commercial interest like Robert's) invariably reacts to individuals who don't hide their difference by attacking them. They feel threatened. And if you come to the defense of individuals, they you'll get attacked too (often more viciously than the minority group!)

The OP is right. One should not plan a trip on the basis of worry and fear. It's evidence of a sweet nature that someone went to the trouble of pointing that out for the benefit of new travelers.

bvlenci

Well, one must remember that for most "must-sees", there's a good reason why they're considered so. It would be a shame to spend a lot of money to go to Europe and not see any of the icons of European culture.

These days, though, the more famous cities in Europe attract such crowds, that the must-sees are absolutely overwhelmed with visitors. The last time we were in Paris, we would have liked to go to Notre Dame, but when we got there, the crowd of people waiting to enter was unbelievable. Since we've both been there other times, we went away. We waited an hour to get into Sainte Chapelle; my husband had never seen it, and I told him it would be worth the wait. This was in late April, so I can't imagine what it would be like in the summer.

I've never been to Versailles, which is probably what's considered a must-see, but palaces are not among my top priorities. Nor do I have any burning desire to go to the top of the Eiffel Tower. To this extent, it's true that we all have our own must-sees. I think it's not a bad idea to remind people that they don't "have to" see anything that doesn't really interest them.

I suggest to people who are going to Rome in high season that they might want to skip some of the must-sees, especially the Vatican Museums and the interior of the Colosseum. The hordes of people in these two places are intolerable to me. Both of these places now have the possibility of off-hours visits, but it can be tiresome to do your touring in the evening or very early morning. If these places are important to you, I'd go in the dead of winter, maybe mid-January to the end of February. The rest of the year, there are many wonderful things to see in Rome that for some reason don't get on the top 10 lists, but would have queues stretching for many metres in any other city. The high season is a good time to get acquainted with some of them. The same is true in Paris and London.

wantgelato

Everyone's "must sees" are different. I am going to Paris for the first time this year and going to the top of the Eiffel Tower is not high on my list. I prefer to picnic in a garden or take a class on how to make macarons (saw it on the internet and added it to my bucket list of things to do). When I was in Ireland, everyone went on about me having to kiss the Blarney, which wasn't something I found appealing. Instead, I stayed back and visited a library. I met a charming Irishman who wrote children's books and we had such great conversation. To me, conversing with this man about his work as a children's author was more of a "must see".

cdnyul

Nice post, sandralist.

Mark

spaarne

<i>sandralist on Apr 17, 16 at 4:55am
There is nothing snobbish in the OP's post. It is kindly advice to people who are worrying ahead of their trip that their trip (or they themselves) will be a failure if they end up not seeing what other people have defined as "must sees". </i>

Bravo!!

Whathello

Yes, I like it when the most disagreeable person on the forum tells the others how to behave.

Also a nice touch to preempt criticism !

'And if you come to the defense of individuals, they you'll get attacked too (often more viciously than the minority group!)'

Edward2005

I agree. Don't go see something just because it's famous. Conversely, don't write something off just because it's famous.

The Mona Lisa - I don't get it and I never will. Looks entirely average to me.

Girl with a Pearl Earring - Now THIS is a masterpiece. Take note, da Vinci.

A Dungeons & Dragons shop in Paris - hundreds of exquisitely hand-painted inch-high figures to use in the game, yours for the price of lunch. I would rather have 10 of these figurines than have the actual Mona Lisa hanging in my house.

colduphere

The OP's name suggests she likes new things, new places, new experiences. Famous or not.

Great attitude.

nytraveler

Obviously everyone has to decide what specific things they want to see and do.

But to say that many most sees are "freakish" is just ridiculous. Granted there are some "sights" that are freakish (Mme Tussaud's for example). But most major sights are so for a reason - a historic association, that they represent the culture of a particular time and place, have a collection of unique and interesting objects or are places of great natural beauty.

If someone says they don;t want to see the Tower of London - that's fine. But I think most people do enjoy it - for the historical associations as well as displays of crown jewels and defensive architecture of the times. If that is "freakish" to you - no one is making you go there. But to label it freakish based on whatever you parameters are is really slightly odd.

lolfn

I lived in Taipei for a year and never once set foot in the National Palace museum, arguably one of the top 5 museums in the world because it contains 'all the things' from Chinese history. When I first arrived, I figured I would go with people when they visited me. When people came to visit, it became an easy place to send them when I had to work.

I have zero regrets of missing this 'must see' because Chinese art doesnt interest me in the least. So, when traveling, it is important to know what floats your boat and tailor your trip to those things and not what others expect you to do.

isabel

Never say never.

Before I opened the post I figured it was another troll, something to get everyone worked up about. And it is a stupid headline, but now that I've read it I think the OP is sincere and was trying to do as Sandra said and just let people planning trips know that it's OK if they don't plan every second of the trip around the things guide books label as 'must sees'.

But to give advice saying "Never" care about the must sees is just as bad advice as telling someone to only concentrate on them.

Balance. Compromise. Perspective.

And then there's the question of what constitutes 'seeing' something. I can't imagine going to Paris and not walking around and looking at the Eiffel Tower up close. But to wait in line hours to go up it does seem like a waste of time for most people's relatively short visits. (I had been to Paris at least 6 times before I went up it - that experience pales in comparison to just walking around it and seeing it from different perspectives).

jubilada

For me it is interesting to know what sights are considered important by others, and why, but then to decide for myself what is most interesting to me, or what places will just be too crowded for me to enjoy.

It has been interesting to try to sort this in relation to upcoming short visit to Rome, where I have not been but where my wife lived for a year when she was young.

NYCFoodSnob

No matter the grandstanding and pontificating that's ubiquitous on this board, the things you want to "see" when you travel are all governed by time. Hours and minutes are extremely limited for the vast majority of tourists. I suspect most tourists probably spend on average about 2.5 days in one place. How much of life or its history can you possibly see in 2.5 days?

There is a never-ending catalog of proof on this board and every other travel board that most people, especially first-timers, try to cram too much into their travel itineraries.

"Must sees" are simply someone's opinion, and everyone on this board has one.

IMO, there is no right or wrong. You simply plan your trip around the things you <i>think</i> you might want to see, and then you prioritize, using time and budget as your guide.

This isn't rocket science.

Whathello

2,5 days in one place.
interesting. I learn everyday here.