Is Naxos worthwhile if not planning to spend time on the beach?
Apr 20th, 2014, 10:44 AM
#21
I am in agreement again with dulciusexasperis. On the question of finding one's next favorite place, rushing around hoping to score is, I still think, pointless. Anyone who can read and use a computer, if they bother to do it sufficiently, can get a good idea of places they might enjoy spending more than a day or 2. One need not see them all in person to find them.
I have, on occasion, found that a place I thought I'd love, I didn't. No problem. Go somewhere else. Those occasions are a perfect opportunity for spontaneous exploration. Just because we think we know where we're going is no reason to stay if we find conditions warrant a move. And another tip, some of my absolute favorite places have been discovered in just that way, listening to recommendations of fellow travelers who clearly knew their stuff and arriving somewhere wonderful and, as yet, off the tourist path. I found Luang Prabang years ago in just that way.
On the trip to the Greek Islands, a friend and I had planned to get off the ferry from Naxos and stay in Samos a few days. We did get off, took a quick look, got right back on and continued on to Kusadasi and never lamented missing one more island. If you don't allow yourself to change your mind enroute, that to me is a real lost opportunity. Always sticking to one's plans under any circumstances is, I think, evidence of no imagination. Even when it's cost me a bit in the form of a paid-for hotel night, I've never been sorry. Fear of making a mistake is the real enemy.
I have, on occasion, found that a place I thought I'd love, I didn't. No problem. Go somewhere else. Those occasions are a perfect opportunity for spontaneous exploration. Just because we think we know where we're going is no reason to stay if we find conditions warrant a move. And another tip, some of my absolute favorite places have been discovered in just that way, listening to recommendations of fellow travelers who clearly knew their stuff and arriving somewhere wonderful and, as yet, off the tourist path. I found Luang Prabang years ago in just that way.
On the trip to the Greek Islands, a friend and I had planned to get off the ferry from Naxos and stay in Samos a few days. We did get off, took a quick look, got right back on and continued on to Kusadasi and never lamented missing one more island. If you don't allow yourself to change your mind enroute, that to me is a real lost opportunity. Always sticking to one's plans under any circumstances is, I think, evidence of no imagination. Even when it's cost me a bit in the form of a paid-for hotel night, I've never been sorry. Fear of making a mistake is the real enemy.
Apr 20th, 2014, 03:26 PM
#24
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of ruffling some feathers, I will go ahead anyway and offer a quote from Paul Theroux.
“Tourists don't know where they've been, travelers don't know where they're going.”
Not everyone interprets what he meant by that correctly and some get sidetracked by trying to argue that the words 'tourist' and 'traveller' are synonymous. They are, but only in one sense. Theroux was just trying to use two words to differentiate HOW different people travel.
What he was saying is that what he chose to call 'tourists' go from place to place in a pre-arranged itinerary in too short a period of time. The 'If this is thursday, this must be Belgium' syndrome.
It is not an ABSOLUTE rule, but it is a general rule. If you consider all the people who go to 'see Europe' each year on a two week trip covering the typical 'Big 5' cities. That's what he is referring to. You cannot 'see' London, Paris, Barcelona, Florence and Rome in 2 weeks. Yet thousands do it every year.
When he wrote about 'travellers' he meant that some people do not follow a pre-planned itinerary (I am certainly one of those people) at all. They know where A is going to be but beyond that nothing is fixed. They 'don't know where they are going'.
The idea of winging it as you go for some reason is very difficult for some people to comprehend. They give all kinds of reasons for why that just isn't practical. In fact, none of the reasons they give (I've heard them all) are actually reasons, they're simply excuses.
Consider this. How can anyone actually KNOW if they have not been to the place before, whether they will want to spend 1 day or one month there? The only logical answer is that they cannot know.
So how then can anyone pre-plan a trip to several places beforehand that they've never been to. Again, the only logical answer is they cannot unless they are willing to get it wrong.
Why then do so many pre-plan if it makes no real sense logically? The answer of course is because they have a list of places they think they would like to visit and X amount of time in which they want to try and visit them. They have no choice as they perceive it but to divide the time by the list and come up with Y number of days in each place.
“Tourists don't know where they've been, travelers don't know where they're going.”
Not everyone interprets what he meant by that correctly and some get sidetracked by trying to argue that the words 'tourist' and 'traveller' are synonymous. They are, but only in one sense. Theroux was just trying to use two words to differentiate HOW different people travel.
What he was saying is that what he chose to call 'tourists' go from place to place in a pre-arranged itinerary in too short a period of time. The 'If this is thursday, this must be Belgium' syndrome.
It is not an ABSOLUTE rule, but it is a general rule. If you consider all the people who go to 'see Europe' each year on a two week trip covering the typical 'Big 5' cities. That's what he is referring to. You cannot 'see' London, Paris, Barcelona, Florence and Rome in 2 weeks. Yet thousands do it every year.
When he wrote about 'travellers' he meant that some people do not follow a pre-planned itinerary (I am certainly one of those people) at all. They know where A is going to be but beyond that nothing is fixed. They 'don't know where they are going'.
The idea of winging it as you go for some reason is very difficult for some people to comprehend. They give all kinds of reasons for why that just isn't practical. In fact, none of the reasons they give (I've heard them all) are actually reasons, they're simply excuses.
Consider this. How can anyone actually KNOW if they have not been to the place before, whether they will want to spend 1 day or one month there? The only logical answer is that they cannot know.
So how then can anyone pre-plan a trip to several places beforehand that they've never been to. Again, the only logical answer is they cannot unless they are willing to get it wrong.
Why then do so many pre-plan if it makes no real sense logically? The answer of course is because they have a list of places they think they would like to visit and X amount of time in which they want to try and visit them. They have no choice as they perceive it but to divide the time by the list and come up with Y number of days in each place.
Apr 20th, 2014, 03:50 PM
#25
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One problem I'm seeing with some of these posts is that you are assuming there are two extremes of traveling - the person who 'sees' five cities in two weeks and the person who spends weeks or months in one place. In reality there are an awful lot of people who fall in between those two extremes.
Also, the post just above seems to be contradicting itself. You are arguing that people SHOULD spend longer in a place but then you say "How can anyone actually KNOW if they have not been to the place before, whether they will want to spend 1 day or one month there?" Well, that's the reason so many novice travelers go on these 'sampling' trips - to see where they might want to go back to. A few posts before that a similar argument is made - that you should be able to 'know' a place by researching it (on line, in guidebooks) - but then goes on to say they got to a place and realized they didn't really like it and moved right on. I guess I would ask that if it was so horrible that you had to move on right away, why didn't that turn up in your research? And if wasn't all that horrible, then perhaps a day or two might have uncovered some qualities that made it worthwhile, and if not, then just don't go back. But it seems to be an argument in favor of the one or two day stay.
Having said all this, I DO generally prefer to spend several days in a location but when I first started traveling I did find a 'reasonably' fast paced itinerary to sample cities and regions worthwhile. And other than a general suggestion here and there that someone's itinerary is too fast to be practical, it doesn't serve any purpose to tell new posters that they are 'wrong' for the style of travel they choose.
Also, the post just above seems to be contradicting itself. You are arguing that people SHOULD spend longer in a place but then you say "How can anyone actually KNOW if they have not been to the place before, whether they will want to spend 1 day or one month there?" Well, that's the reason so many novice travelers go on these 'sampling' trips - to see where they might want to go back to. A few posts before that a similar argument is made - that you should be able to 'know' a place by researching it (on line, in guidebooks) - but then goes on to say they got to a place and realized they didn't really like it and moved right on. I guess I would ask that if it was so horrible that you had to move on right away, why didn't that turn up in your research? And if wasn't all that horrible, then perhaps a day or two might have uncovered some qualities that made it worthwhile, and if not, then just don't go back. But it seems to be an argument in favor of the one or two day stay.
Having said all this, I DO generally prefer to spend several days in a location but when I first started traveling I did find a 'reasonably' fast paced itinerary to sample cities and regions worthwhile. And other than a general suggestion here and there that someone's itinerary is too fast to be practical, it doesn't serve any purpose to tell new posters that they are 'wrong' for the style of travel they choose.
Apr 20th, 2014, 04:08 PM
#26
Isabel, regarding researching a place and deciding not to stay - the answer is simple. I just didn't feel like it when I got there. It was a spontaneous decision, not because as you wrongly assume, it was horrible, but because I felt like going to Turkey that day instead. My point about the guides is that we usually can get some sort of feel for a place, and further, if we're wrong we don't have to suffer a less than perfect decision by staying. Or for any reason at all.
I think we can advise those with less travel experience to inject some spontaneity into an otherwise fixed itinerary, and also describe the joys of really getting a feeling for a place with a longer stay without saying they're wrong. Isn't it why they come and ask the questions, after all? To get ideas that others have to offer, even if they haven't thought to ask the question? We'd be stingy, indeed, if we didn't share what we believe to be true.
Even after many years and a lot of travel, I come to the forums to learn how to do it better, too, and sometimes the best information is off topic or philosophical, rather than practical.
I think we can advise those with less travel experience to inject some spontaneity into an otherwise fixed itinerary, and also describe the joys of really getting a feeling for a place with a longer stay without saying they're wrong. Isn't it why they come and ask the questions, after all? To get ideas that others have to offer, even if they haven't thought to ask the question? We'd be stingy, indeed, if we didn't share what we believe to be true.
Even after many years and a lot of travel, I come to the forums to learn how to do it better, too, and sometimes the best information is off topic or philosophical, rather than practical.
Apr 20th, 2014, 04:31 PM
#27
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One never knows when a 'connection' will be made with a place. I once planned to spend 4 nights in Bilbao, in theory it had -and indeed has- everything I love in a city. Once I had seen the Guggenheim I just could not leave the place soon enough. We bailed out in less than 24hrs. Proceeded to the little town of Castro-Urdiales as in impromptu overnight stay and then had one of the best and most memorable meals of our traveling lives.
I love the freedom of winging it. But I also like knowing that a guaranteed bed awaits me, even if I wander into the hotel close to midnight.
I agree with the fundamental difference between Traveler and Tourist, however, I love our road trips and the excitement of seeing the town over the next hill.
I love the freedom of winging it. But I also like knowing that a guaranteed bed awaits me, even if I wander into the hotel close to midnight.
I agree with the fundamental difference between Traveler and Tourist, however, I love our road trips and the excitement of seeing the town over the next hill.
Apr 20th, 2014, 07:16 PM
#28
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marigross: we booked this apartment...
http://www.chaniastudios.com/rooms/e...tment-lonicera
It has free cancellation, but it's a great-looking place and a nice location in Old Town. The TA reviews are rhapsodic.
Glad you're getting some use from our trip report. We really enjoyed our time in the Peloponnese!
http://www.chaniastudios.com/rooms/e...tment-lonicera
It has free cancellation, but it's a great-looking place and a nice location in Old Town. The TA reviews are rhapsodic.
Glad you're getting some use from our trip report. We really enjoyed our time in the Peloponnese!
Apr 21st, 2014, 03:37 AM
#29
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marigross, If you're interested look at Palazzo di Pietro, right in the city center ( Chania). We stayed there a few years ago, and would definitely return. Location was fantastic,(right across the street from the harbor and in town) staff was lovely, rooms were spotless and large.
Apr 21st, 2014, 08:03 AM
#30
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isabel, your comments are reasonable. While it might seem as if the assumption is two extremes, really that is not the case.
It's a question of a 'general rule'. What makes a general rule general of course is that there are exceptions to the rule and hence the expression, 'the exceptions prove the rule'.
People should in my opinion spend longer in a place that interests them and yet still be free to leave if a place does not turn out to interest them as much as they thought it would. Those two things are not contradictory at all. Unless someone pre-books their stay.
As an example, a few months ago my wife and I were in New Mexico. We decided to go and take a look at a National Park named Bandolier. It looked interesting.
We arrived in the area and found a hotel. No reservation, just walk in. Reception asked how many nights we wanted to book for. I said, 'We're not sure, book us in for a week and if we decide to leave earlier we will let you know the day before'. They were fine with that, why wouldn't they be if they had a room available.
As it turned out, we stayed 6 nights and then decided to move on. I'm sure if we had asked to stay longer, the answer would have been 'no problem'.
It's a question of a 'general rule'. What makes a general rule general of course is that there are exceptions to the rule and hence the expression, 'the exceptions prove the rule'.
People should in my opinion spend longer in a place that interests them and yet still be free to leave if a place does not turn out to interest them as much as they thought it would. Those two things are not contradictory at all. Unless someone pre-books their stay.
As an example, a few months ago my wife and I were in New Mexico. We decided to go and take a look at a National Park named Bandolier. It looked interesting.
We arrived in the area and found a hotel. No reservation, just walk in. Reception asked how many nights we wanted to book for. I said, 'We're not sure, book us in for a week and if we decide to leave earlier we will let you know the day before'. They were fine with that, why wouldn't they be if they had a room available.
As it turned out, we stayed 6 nights and then decided to move on. I'm sure if we had asked to stay longer, the answer would have been 'no problem'.
