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.
Abby, I enjoyed reading your interpretation of Russell’s ideology of traveling. It does seem like most of today’s travel writing entails a wild adventure. I think that these do make a story more interesting; however there are many other stories that should be told regardless of how adventurous they may seem. When reading Kapuscinski’s story, I felt like he just wanted to travel because he had not before. But once he realized where he was going, he became curious because he knew nothing about India. I liked your approach to these two articles because they were completely different from mine.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful comment Willy...
DeleteAbby, I wholeheartedly endorse the observations you make about the Amazonia piece, and your call for less "crazy" adventure travel writing echoes beautifully, methinks, with the readings we've done this semester. I think in particular of Shukman's piece, which on the surface might simply be a let's-do-stupid-stuff-in-a-radiation-zone bit of contrived writing but which he pushes hard to have actual scientific value.
ReplyDeleteAbby,
ReplyDeleteI found your entry to be quite interesting. I haven't really thought much about the need of "crazy" in the adventure of crossing borders. I more closely relate to Kapuscinski. I think the way that he verbalizes borders speaks more closely to my idea of crossing borders. However, I think your comparison of the two was done nicely!
Abby,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you believe travel writing stories need to be more than an act of crossing a border. I never thought of the depth of a story that comes from an adventure rather than just crossing a border. Like you stated through Kapuscinski, not all borders are the same. While Kapuscinski wanted to travel the world and see new places, he was suddenly afraid to travel to India. In my opinion, after reading your blog, I think a true traveler is like Russell. I believe this because when a person is up for any experience then they will have a more enriching journey.
I understand the way you say you need to be crazy. To me it makes things fun and exciting to take risk and step out of your comfort zone. It make any one feel alive and act like a wake up call of what they have been missing. Your comparison has been described great.
ReplyDeleteAbby, I really enjoy the way you talk about your own feelings towards the topic. While talking about the two men and their own views on crossing boarders, you threw in your own emotions and how certain things always happen. Although I cannot claim to feel the same way as you, I am sure others do. It is a big event in some peoples lives and I can see how it can be really exciting.
ReplyDelete