The other day Enric Corbero of www.virtourist.com came to visit and we talked for about 4 hours mainly about traveling. One of the things, which cropped up in conversation was that I said I liked visiting villages better than famous places, but Enric said he thought famous places were more interesting that’s why they were famous. I think I like villages because you can discover something in a village that you can never find on the internet. You can look up a famous place on the internet and find photos and lots of information, whereas a small village is full of surprises. What do you think?
2006-10-02 08:49:01 · 4 answers · asked by chris m 2 in Travel ➔ Other - Destinations
I agree with you! Famous places are great, but they tend to be crowded and your access to them controlled.
Some examples:
Famous but less than fabulous . . . Stonehenge. It's soooo famous, but you go there and you stand way back behind the rope and for all you can tell it's a movie set made out of styrofoam. For me, there was no personal contact and no connection was felt. I was very disappointed.
Famous but less than fabulous . . . Cork Castle and the Blarney Stone. So many people that you always feel like you're in the way and they shove you through the place so you can say you've done it.
Less than famous, but ever so memorable . . . small castle ruins in England, Ireland and Turkey. Those little dots on the map that don't get the traffic of the big places. Sure, there often aren't tour guides and gift shops, but you can usually find a booklet or pamphlet and explore the place yourself. You've got time to admire the view and wonder what it would have been like with all the walls intact and the fires lit. You can touch the stones that were set in place centuries ago and you have the time to show your son how those cool little rectangular windows are really for defensive purposes.
Less than famous, but ever so memorable . . . Terceria, Azores. It's a small island that I just loved. Absolutely beautiful. Good shopping. Very nice people who took the time to be gracious and welcoming. Great local wine. I felt comfortable there and not like I was in the way or getting shoved around.
Obviously, for me the experience has to include a level of personal involvement -- hands on, getting to know people and learing about how they live, finding out what makes places special.
2006-10-02 09:41:50 · answer #1 · answered by EC-S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He has a point. Famous places are famous for a reason. I think it depends on what you are looking for though. If you want to see historical places, grand architecture, and the things that make a city great, then perhaps a more touristy place is the way to go. However if you are more interested in the people smaller hamlets are nice too. I think both hold their own kind of beauty, and can be appreciated on different levels. I live in the very historical Boston and think it is beautiful but I also enjoy visiting some of the smaller towns and villages around for they have their own kind of history and character. I say, why not see both!
2006-10-02 08:53:13 · answer #2 · answered by Aurora 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BIG famous attractions in small "villages" are more interesting....
like the pyramids in Egypt or Central America or the Great WALL of China...
Which are more interesting: Small picturesque villages or famous tourist attractions in big cities?
2006-10-02 09:07:43 · answer #3 · answered by art 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we are only a % bump off I-ninety. Our nickname is the woodland city. Our mascot is a Sock Monkey. Our image is a brilliant orange painted scrap metallic. about all we can declare is we are the living house city of inexpensive Trick.
2016-11-25 23:01:48 · answer #4 · answered by incera 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋