Journal 6

Is humor important to travel writing?  Use both pro and con examples to make your case.

            I think humor is important to travel writing depending on where the author is going because if it is a more serious environment there should not be any humor. For example, if you were going to D.C. and visiting the Holocaust museum then you would not want to have any humor involved because that would obviously be disrespectful. There are times; however, that I think humor can be a great asset throughout travel writing. For me, it makes things so much more interesting to read because I am the type of person to constantly joke and think everything is funny. I rather read something with a little humor that still describes the place accurately rather than a piece that is kind of boring just discussing what they encountered or saw.  

            An example that made me think of how humor is accurately put into a piece is when we discussed the author Cahill because I think humor makes his travel writing experience so much more interesting. I have never seen the effects that PCP can have on people and I think the way he describes the effects of the drug is humorous. For example, Cahill describes what it looks like to live in a drug orientated town, “thousands of chronic PCP users stumbling and lurching through the parking lot, all of them sweating and drooling, growling and barking, attacking anything that moved in their delirium, stumbling after their prey with glazed, marble eyes” (Cahill 2). I thought this was funny to see because of the way he described these people on the drug. He defines them like they are not human and states that they are “zombie like creatures” (Cahill 2). Without the use of humor in this piece it would be hard to precisely describe what this drug town looked and acted like; which is why humor is a pro because it helps me visualize places better and understand them more accurately.

 

Overall, I think humor is a good thing because it allows the reader to be so much more engaged in the reading. It just depends on what the author is writing about and how he is using humor. I also think it is a con sometimes when the author is trying to be funny, but failing really bad at it. This would make it difficult for me to pay attention to the travel writing because I would be so distracted by how bad and awkward the humor was portrayed.     

Journal 5

While Kapuscinski and Russell discuss far different subjects in their writings, both are border crossers. What borders do you think each writer has crossed? Do those borders matter to you? Why or why not?

 

            I think that the two authors are complete opposites when it comes to wanting to travel across borders. They also differ because one is going as a writer and the other is going for politics.  Russell discusses how she believes the idea of traveling has changed. She states that, “Enough! The hapless reading public don't want to read about a blindfold attempt on Everest simply because no one has tackled the mountain blindfold before. Similarly, a sweat-soaked and life threateningly dangerous journey no longer justifies a travel book” (Russell 4). I found this to be true because traveling to border is not enough anymore. I agree with Russell because travel writing stories have to have more adventure now. Travel can no longer be just about the culture and the experience, because that is not good enough. It is a shame that there must be crazy or encaptivating story behind the travel and crossing those borders.

         I believe this is why there is big difference between Russell’s idea of traveling borders and Kapuscinski’s. He believes that traveling a border is where something crazy is going to happen and he cannot wait to travel so he can experience the excitement. But his reaction changes when he learns he is going to India. For example he states how he feels about going to India, “My first reaction was astonishment And right after that, panic: I knew nothing about India. I feverishly searched my thoughts for some associations, images. names. Nothing. Zero” (Kapuscinski 9).  I thought this reaction was interesting because the mere  act of crossing a border was so amazing to him, but it changed when he found out where he was going. I believe that Russell’s reaction would have been very different, because she seems to want to go anywhere and everywhere. I thought it was interesting that Russell was willing to go to such a dangerous place. She stated that, “It's not normal for violence and death to walk hand in hand in the sunshine. Sunny days are for picnics, for lying in the long grass, for taking a bottle of water and setting out to walk across a bog” (Russell 124). Although Bosnia was filled with sunshine it was still a scary place to be and Russell knew that. I think that is how the two differ; because one is willing to go wherever and the other is hesitant but cannot wait to see what traveling has to offer.