Abroad He Feels Like A Tourist

It depends where I'm going, and the difference between 'touristy' and 'authentic' is different everywhere you go, the way we construct that 'authenticity' (almost certainly different from the way the locals perceive it), and why it matters.

My last holiday was in Istanbul, and most of what we did was standard cultural tourist stuff, and apart from some deliberately random wandering in the city, we hardly did anything non-touristy - but Hagia Sophia and the Blue Mosque and so on are hardly offensively touristy. It was the best holiday I ever had.

My previous holiday was in Jamaica. My wife's brother was getting married out there. All of her family went for one of those all-in, guaranteed no interaction with locals places. We went elsewhere, and while we hit a few of the tourist spots, we also spent time ignoring advice and wandering through parts of Kingston we were told to avoid, for instance. (I was looking for some good record shops.) I would have thought it pointless going all the way to Jamaica then staying in a resort that could as easily have been the Canaries or Greece or some such - I holiday largely for new and memorable experiences. On the other hand, I have nothing at all against the big tourist attractions - many are big attractions because they are wonderful.

Typically fence sitting, but this doesn't seem far from asking what's better, chart pop or obscure underground music? I can't imagine living without both in my life.

Define REAL.

That's sort of a good point, in that it's all real in some way. On the other hand, we all know Tom thinks that the depths of the Louisiana swamps are more real than Disneyland, and we sort of do too.

Well, since I'm about to go off on the Great Big Trip -- I like going to places that other folks like to go to, to hang around and chat and have fun. I trust my friends' judgments. :-)

That said, if you are going to go, say, backpacking round South America I'd imagine it is only sensible to go on what is broadly-speaking the tourist trail, just because it is likely to be a hell of a lot safer but still largely unspoilt.

If I was in Italy or France or Spain, however, I think I'd go out of my way to avoid the tourist traps (apart from, as Martin says, those sites that are too damn amazing to miss), unless I wanted to interact with other tourists, of course, and in a foreign language-speaking country I may well want to.

That said, one of the greatest holidays I ever had I spent doing very little other than sitting around the resort drinking in the sun and meeting loads of great people, a lot of whom had come from all over Europe. I'd say there's room for both.

I'm not convinced by the idea of seeking out the "real" [tourist destination]. It sounds too much like having a patronising view of other cultures as just being there to provide you with colourful entertainment. It's tourist trail all the way for me.

What DV says reminds me of one uncomfortable moment, in Puri in India. A guidebook had directed us to take a stroll through what was sort of a fishing village in one corner of the city. We started to do so, but realised that we were simply walking between people's homes, and that these were not quaint (always a dodgy term!) but poverty-stricken, and with little privacy (roughly built huts without doors), so we very quickly retreated.

Then again, Calcutta: the main tourist area is central and well maintained, free of cows, very few beggars, no one dying or crapping in the middle of the street, old Victorian buildings. Very dull indeed. So where is the real Calcutta? The enormous and beautiful mosque, where they seemed never to have had white visitors? The stunning Jain temples, where we were staring at the astonishingly extravagant decoration, and most everyone else was staring at us, the only two white people around? The botanical gardens, which seemed to be a middle/upper class day out kind of place, with what must be the world's most amazing tree? Or the back streets, full of filth and sick, desperate people?

All of this is real, but I am not fool enough to figure that I know the real India from seeing this (and more). Nonetheless, had I come home after such looking at the big government buildings and central museums, I'd have learned infinitely less - and I'd have felt like the journey was pointless. I see nothing wrong with learning about other countries and cultures, and being there is an excellent way of doing that. This isn't just about poor countries, by the way: I mentioned deliberately aimless rambling (in Istanbul, but I also did this in Puri, for instance): I did the same around Manhattan my first time there. It's very informative and always fascinating. I'd recommend doing that in London, anyone visiting here the first time.

i try to engage in derive i get good things from this (mass at the newman church and then a service at a contempary anglican church on assumption) and sometimes its a disaster ( a drink at the springbok in white city london,being assailed by heroin dealers in van, being lost in dec. in the twin cities)

that said i obsesseivly visited main stream galleries (i also spent 15 min. at the globe-fuck that was awful, only play i walked out on.)

martin, yes. and no. in other respects las vegas is more real than boston, which is a contrived heritage experience to some. to some extent, you cannot experience 'the real' unless you either live there, or know people in the place you are visiting

las vegas has the second largest population of mormons per captia in america.

las vegas has the best thrift stores in america

las vegas is the oddest place in the daylight

I agree that it's not so easy to see the real place as opposed to what has been built for tourists, but you do have some options - you can choose to go only where the signs and guides say, or you can wander and try other places. You can end up just kidding yourself, true. I'm not even arguing that this bit about seeing the 'real' wherever is superior any real way, but it's of more interest to me. And you're absolutely right that you can only learn a little bit as a tourist - I guess we all prioritise what we do on holidays with one factor being how much we care about learning about the place, against sun, relaxation, entertainment, arts and so on.

Possibly the most touristy place I have ever been to is Venice in January... after a couple of hours walking round there it really did feel like one gigantic wet museum, with very little there that wasn't for tourists.

But it was so damn beautiful.

There's nothing better than getting lost in the backstreets, just wandering. Bangkok though was far too hot and hasslesome for me to do tthis, to my eternal shame. Loved doig that in Barcelona though, the street s there are made for wandering aimlessly, Paris too,