Journal 6

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

I think humor is important in most situations in any type of writing. However, just like in life, one must be careful about who you might offend. There is a fine line between shedding new light on a horrible situation and going too far with jokes. For example, the other night I went to calling hours for my friends’ grandpa and was careful not to look too happy to see them, yet I tried to cheer them up a little bit; the same precautions must be taken with any type of writing, including travel writing. There are some serious subjects that may not require a humorous approach, but I think it is acceptable to add some humor or sarcasm to most situations. If my reader was too stupid or serious to handle or appreciate that humor, I’d rather they simply not read my pieces.

In my humble opinion, there are very few times that humor would be inappropriate in travel writing. An example would be if the author is describing an all-around horrible situation, including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: tragic death, mass destruction, starving children, and/or abuse of another human being. Even after describing these terrible situations, though, I think humor would be important (at least in some cases); it would just be common courtesy to cheer your reader up a little bit after making them sad.

Now that I think of it, I don’t think I have ever enjoyed a book that does not have some small trace of, or attempt at, humor in it. Of course, one might argue that literature is not necessarily meant to be enjoyed, but must make one think , learn, or become wiser. I, however, believe that literature, including travel writing, should be able to make me wiser while still giving me a good laugh here and there.

Journal 5

Ryszard Kapuscinski and Mary Russell both cross very different borders - Kapuscinski, in Travels with Herodotus crosses a literal border, while Russell’s border in Mirror Images is more metaphorical. Kapuscinski, a man whose country was at war for so long, is interested in crossing a border simply for the curiosity of finding out what is on the other side. This is a strange way to think of traveling for many people who cross state lines, or maybe into nearby Canada, with little or no feeling about the difference between the two places. For Kapuscinski, crossing the border is more mysterious and dangerous situation than many of us might be in.

Russell’s border, unlike Kapuscinski’s, is very metaphorical. She crosses a sort of border between having one definition of “home” and returning after her travels to realize how different it is. Perhaps we only truly travel when we can return home and realize something we never would have noticed before, or with a new and improved appreciation for the way we can live, which is what happened to Russell.

I think both of these borders are important. Whether someone is traveling for the sake of discovery and curiosity or for the sake of rediscovering one’s roots, these borders are some that we should hope to cross in our own travels - and hopefully some we can talk about if we ever become travel writers.

Journal 4

One source that provides a template for how I would like to travel is Rick Steves’ Faithful Travel (I re-watched the video here). He mentions the Thomas Jefferson quote, “Travel makes a person wiser but less happy.” I think this is what I want my travel experience to be. Obviously I enjoy being a happy person, but I’d trade pure happiness for a little more wisdom any day; besides, there’s probably no way to truly be happy, so I might as well make the trade. I read The DaVinci Code this summer, and it made me question all that I’ve ever been taught about religion; I hope that traveling to Rome next spring will do the same thing. I want to question what I am supposed to believe, because I think it will not only make me grow in wisdom, but I will also (hopefully) grow in faith once I answer those questions for myself. Steves also said, “Less happy is not a bad thing; I want the truth.” I completely agree. I would rather be saddened by the truth than happily ignorant of it.

Another source that I’d like to travel by is the introduction by Tim Cahill in The Best American Travel Writing 2006. Cahill states that travel writers are not assigned articles, but “pieces” or “stories” (he prefers “stories”)(Cahill xiv). If I ever wrote a travel book, I would find it easier to write this way, and it would probably also be more entertaining for the reader. I probably wouldn’t find it too difficult to write a “No shit, there I was” story, unless of course the story was one that moved me inwardly in some way; I love telling my friends stories about crazy things that happen to me, so writing the story down shouldn't be too much more difficult. Cahill writes, “Stories are the sole written instruments that can bring tears to our eyes, or make us laugh, or even - God forbid - compel us to think, and thereby perhaps even take a position” (Cahill xv). He also writes, “encouraging people to travel promotes tolerance and understanding” (Cahill xvi).

I hope my travel writing would do all of these things - make my readers laugh, cry, take a position, and become sadder but wiser. Oh wait, didn't I just say this type of writing would be easy? I might have to rethink that one...