The Joy of Traveling to Out-of-the-Way Places

Hi Mardee,
It's nice to hear from you and to see your post. I haven't read your linked article yet. I notice that you are traveling to Romania. When are you going? Can you share your itinerary? We are thinking of visiting Romania and Budapest in September. Haven't started any planning yet. I have a Hungary guidebook but I need to order my Romania guidebook. Thinking of buying Rough Guides. How long will you be in Romania for? What are you using for planning tools?
Thanks,
Karen

Mardee, this is a marvelous story--thank you for sharing it. I love this couple's adventurous travel style. They have a positive attitude and an abundance mindset, and they seem to place the highest value on forming relationships with local residents. I appreciate their principle of joining the local economy (rather than the tourist economy, which often benefits multinational corporations more than the actual people living there); I try to do that too, as a form of respect for my destination.

When I travel, I tend to focus more on sites than on people because I am naturally shy. After reading this article, though, I might feel inspired to engage a bit more with local residents.

Mardee, many thanks for sharing this article. I've been allowing other people's fears limit my travel horizons, especially relative to the African continent. It's time for me to throw off those hesitancies and get to work planning my voyage there.

kmkwoo, I'm sending you a PM. :-)

NYCLibrarian and jphbucks, I agree wholeheartedly with both of you. The article has given me some motivation to change my game a bit and not have such a rigid schedule. And maybe...just maybe...pulling up a map one day and sticking a pin in it to see where it might take me.

Thank you for sharing. I would have missed that otherwise,

We like to slow it down a lot with longer stays, enjoying the environs as much or more than the traditional sights. It is the being there that feeds my soul, not checking the boxes.

Not sure we are ready for the truly adventurous, but I envy the spirit they instilled in their children. If only I could get my spouse on a flight to New Zealand…

If you look at my profile page there is a list of where i have been. Quite a bit of it may qualify in the same catagory as the article. So you think I agree with the article? No, not really. I think its a bit reckless. It gives the impression that Tunisia is a one to one trade off for a conventional place like Paris. Thats not the case for most of their destinations and isnt the case for some of their modes of transportation. These are all great places for the right sort of people, who take the time to learn enough to go in with their eyes wide open.

Their personal travel pricipals are fine ... well except for "Don’t let travel warnings stop you." Someday someone will expect my US tax money to pay to bail them out someplace because they walked in blindly (or didnt suggest to those reading, not to walk in blindly).

I admire their life. Well done. Not much use for the reckless article.

It is the being there that feeds my soul, not checking the boxes.

Laurel, very nicely said. Sometimes I think the language we use tends to drive us towards checking boxes; like "I did Venice. More and more I find myself gravitating farther into my comfort zone; but maybe this will get me back to my earlier and looser trips.

Laurel--Your words also struck a chord with me. Iceland is our happy place and I don't have to be doing anything there and I feel totally at peace. On my last trip, I took a friend who had never been and she noticed that I had a perma grin the entire time;) We are pretty adventurous, but the people in this article are on a whole other level;)

We have lived overseas and traveled extensively since retirement. After visiting key places like London, Paris, Rome, Venice, etc. we have endeavored to visit more out of the way places.
Since 2019, we have done a cruise up the coast of Norway to the North Cape; done a tour of Iceland; toured Lima, Cuzco, the Sacred Valley and Machu Picchu; a tour of Quito, Ecuador and a cruise of the Galapagos Islands: done a safari in Kenya and Tanzania; did a tour of national parks in the American West; as well as a tour of Northern Spain and Southern France and a Danube River cruise followed by a 6 day tour of Romania.

Also, we have done a cruise around the Horn of South America, as well as a tour of the Canadian Rockies.

When I first had a chance to tour the World, I wanted to see key historical places, mainly in Europe, but once you have been to those key historical places, scenic place are on the agenda.

A lovely article…thanks, Mardee.
I often feel , when I read the tightly planned (over-planned?) itineraries of some travelers…on this forum and on others…that I am “not doing or planning” enough to fill the days of my trips.
So many are indeed just ticking boxes.
I’ve travelled lots and have seen many of the great sites and wonders of the world; but I think I’m happiest on my trips doing everyday things, chatting to people who live in those places, and finding little surprises that I wasn’t looking for.
If I’m in a place new to me, then I will seek out those sites that it is known for; but if I’m returning to a place, then I really enjoy watching the everyday life which goes on regardless.

I think I’m happiest on my trips doing everyday things, chatting to people who live in those places, and finding little surprises that I wasn’t looking for

S J, that's so true. One of my fondest memories is traveling through Turkey on a rickety bus sitting next to an old lady who kept feeding me trail mix from her bag. :-) All of my best memories are the encounters with people; usually locals but sometimes other travelers. Those are the special moments that make travel so worthwhile.

When I first had a chance to tour the World, I wanted to see key
historical places, mainly in Europe, but once you have been to those
key historical places, scenic place are on the agenda.

You nailed it. We tend to forget that we have seen much of the iconic stuff and tend to over recommend the out of the way places. They are excellent too, but there is also a reason so many go to the typical iconic places. But there is no rule that you can not do both and I think its healthy to do both. And there is no reason you have to put up with crushing crowds. To avoid the majority of it and still hit the iconic places (iconic, for lack of a better word right now) you just have to do some homework and some planning. I always come back to the place I know best, but its a universal concept. If you come here and your most significant take away is the crowds, you didnt plan or research as well as you could have. Here like in most tourist cities the local economy, the areas where everyone is speaking the local language, and the areas not inudated with tourists are 5 minutes from the iconic stuff. But you gotta know and that isnt always evident on the surface. its why the forum i so good.

The author of the article didnt avoid any of the iconic stuff, they just choose to add to the list the iconic stuff thats hard to reach. I wonder if you were to ask the author if they saw Europe or Central America's or Asia's top ten if they would say no. Doubt it. They may have just spread their wings during or after the iconic stuff. Garancières is not substitute for Paris, but an interesting side trip.

Mr. E., I'm not sure why you are so bent on attacking this article, but I don't think there is anything in here that says they did not see the "iconic" sights. The article, however, was not about seeing the Eiffel Tower but about exploring and traveling outside your comfort zone. That is what they focused on.

It may not be for you—that's fine. But I liked the article, and it sounds like others do, too. I love the idea of picking a destination out of the blue, or traveling somewhere and not visiting the top 10 sites. Please keep in mind that some of us appreciate the possibilities they raise. :-)

Mardee, I am sorry if I came across that way. As I stated in my first post, I admire their adventurism. Most of the comments above are equating the article to visiting quaint towns an hour away from a major European city. That really wasnt the message I got from the article. But, I sure do support getting out of the tourist cities and into the local economies.

I have traveled to South Africa, Egypt, Honduras (a lot), Belize, El Salvador, Ukraine during time of war, Albania. Those I would suspect many would find on the edge. I also drove from Sofia to Istanbul and toured Bulgaria and Romania and Bosnia and Montenegro long before they were places Americans went; places many think are still on the fringe (I am comfortable with them all). First on my bucket list right now is Azerbaijan and a couple of the …”stan” countries but they are on hold till Russia is more certain to not shoot down another passenger plane in the region.

But that still doesn’t make it the same sort of trip as going to Paris and what the article didn’t cover was the understanding of that and the amount of research that should be done and the understandings of reality that have to be addressed and accepted; especially if you are taking young children along.

“That’s crazy travel!” warned a travel agent in Belize when Steve described our family’s proposed route from Tikal in Guatemala by bus and riverboat to Livingston on the coast, then by sea to Punta Gorda, Belize. The route worked splendidly.

I guess if you don’t feel a heightened level of responsibility for the care of children, it’s not crazy. And since, this time, nothing bad happened it must be okay for everyone with children. Of course, if you filter out some exaggeration, maybe not so bad, as there is no “sea” between Livingston and Punta Gorda (it’s a bay). I have family in Central America, I’ve spent a lot of time there over the years. Its not safe by any standard that Americans would recognize. There is a reason my brother-in-law picked me up at the airport with a gun. It’s reckless to suggest otherwise. I am not saying it is so dangerous that you stay away, I am saying that the article is fluff and if you are going to make the trip know what you are getting into. Personally, if I still lived in Texas, I would be there more often. I wouldn’t take young kids (unless my brother-in-law was with me) and I would take a few precautions and I would do it knowing that if anything did go wrong, pretty much on my own, but I have few in the world that depend on me these days so ……………..

Mardee, is the rule here, love it or be quiet? I was sort of hoping for share your opinion? I guess the biggest argument against my words might be “we are all RS Travelers and we know all this so you don’t have to say it”.

No, of course it's not, Mr. E. And I'm probably a little sensitive right now as I am have a cold/cough that kept me awake last night, so I'm running on empty a bit. :-) I do get what you're saying.

That said, the couple did have some tips and advice at the end that were helpful, I think. And I could be wrong, but I don't think that they discussed the safety issues becomes I'm assuming that they know their audience is relatively well-educated and smart enough to know the risks. After all, it's not a general blog, but an article that was written for the WSJ. But again, i think the general tone was to get readers to think about the possibilities of exploration rather than checking off a tick list. And to encourage travelers to head to places that they might never have dreamed of visiting. They know most people will never be able to do what they did (and do). But even if we attempt it a bit, it's an accomplishment. :-)

I'm agreeing more with Mr. E here.

I saw a lot of this back in the hippie days where this article's ideal was more "mainstream". It works surprisingly well, until it doesn't. :(

All travel (all life) is possibilities/probabilities. Like Pascal's wager, the unpleasant possibilities are bad enough (even if low probability) to weigh on your choices for most people. Getting past that can be hugely enriching as many people here (including Mr. E) has said. But you're still rolling the dice. Research can certainly help with that but still...

Personally, being single, I'd go more often than not. And I have. But if I had family/kids...

Mardee, thats okay. I often come across sort of ... well, not sure of the word, but I suspect if i asked I would get plenty of suggestions LOL.

I get a little overly sensitive about a few issues. The first is children. Given the information they offered and their nonchalant attitude towards the issues of child safety is beyond somethng that I can be comfortable with. And coming to the conclusion that WSJ readers are smart enough to know that the author didnt tell the whole story isnt good enough. Only takes one, "but they did it" putting a child's life in danger.... An adult taking what ever chances they want, well that’s different. Go for it. My kids are grown and don’t rely on me any longer, so I have a whole new set of standards for myself.

But there is a a lot to be said for "The Joy of Traveling to Out-of-the-Way Places" just not poor judgment when you are responsible for others. Their article had the wrong title. Should have been more like "Extreme Travel with Children" or "How we took our kids to the edge of danger and back".

I get the feeling that for a lot of people, if the odds are low enough, they consider the danger "imaginary". Or it just doesn't exist at all in their World. So, they really do live in a different World than I do. Until they don't.

(Or I don't or...)

I think I’m a contrarian on this board and my travel style is quite similar to the couple in this article. I tend to ignore travel warnings and did take my kids (when they were young) all over the world including places like Syria (pre uprising) Lebanon, Southern Africa on safari, across the Stan’s including the Pamir highway from Dushanbe, Tajikistan to Osh in Kyrgyzstan.

I feel all travel requires a risk assessment and research to determine what is your tolerance limit and how far out of your comfort zone you are willing to be and also your outlook on the world. I’ve always done my own research to decide whether a place is safe to travel to and don’t rely on just what the govt’s put out. I was in Algeria last year in some of the same places mentioned in the article (except the Sahara) and never felt any danger whatsoever. In fact, got into a conversation with an Algerian on the flight to Annaba who then dropped us at our hotel, who we later met up with for dinner and who showed us how to exchange money in jewelry shops (this is similar to Uzbekistan and Argentina when it pays to convert your $s).

As I get older there is a growing tendency to stay in my comfort zone which I have to fight against if I want to explore more of this world and see some more of its wonders. Earlier this year, I had to endure a 6 hour dusty van ride, numerous police checks, and lots of rutted roads getting from southern Senegal to Guinea Bissau in order to get to the Bijagos islands. Getting to the Cape Verde islands was a lot easier. However, what I generally find is that there are always people to help you and especially when you have younger kids, it opens a lot of doors.

What I normally tell people is that outside of the few war zones, the world is a very safe place. I’m currently driving through Morocco and am looking ahead to my next adventure in spring - bird watching in the coffee belt in Colombia followed by a few of the highlights of Bolivia.

As Rick always says “keep on traveling”

I get the feeling that for a lot of people, if the odds are low enough, they consider the danger "imaginary". Or it just doesn't exist at all in their World.

Most people get their notions of how dangerous the world is from the news media. And the news media exist, primarily, by wildly exaggerating the dangers of the world. "If it bleeds, it leads."

Something to keep in mind.

This may be too cynical, but thinking about the recent post by Dave about the online travel writer who never actually travelled to any of the places they wrote about, I can't help thinking that we have no idea what travel the author of this article actually did. Nonetheless, the discussion of how different people judge risk is interesting.

I can't help thinking that we have no idea what travel the author of this article actually did.

I really think that's a bit much. If you're going to be that cynical, then you might want to point out that every single trip report on this forum could be fake.

The authors (both of whom write regularly for the Wall Street Journal) gave specific instances of what happened, and a lot of detail. And their trips were mostly to out of the way places. And finally, the article wasn't really about the destinations. It was about getting to travel "outside the box", opening your mind to new places, and slowing the trip down.

The blog posts that others have noted are usually just generalized writings about popular places to visit. There are no personal anecdotes. Mostly it's just a lot of blurbage about the best things to see and where to eat, and so on.

Lastly, if you look at the author's bio, he has some great credentials and works for the Wall Street Journal, which has a good reputation. So unless the WSJ is actively involved in farming out travel fantasy to the public, I don't think that this is a viable argument. https://www.wsj.com/news/author/stephenkreider-yoder

"Most people get their notions of how dangerous the world is from the news media. And the news media exist, primarily, by wildly exaggerating the dangers of the world."

Well, I wouldn't call Mr. E (from his account of places he's been) "most people". And he, and I, are the people urging caution here. I do think most of the time you can get by in these so-called "dangerous situations". And a lot of people do. And then they proclaim (loudly) that the cautions are a bunch of hooey. I've said before, the odds for the bad things are low. Rare events happen all the time. Just most of them are trivial (the particular car you saw at the turn-off from the Freeway for ex). And most "rare" events don't matter.

You roll the dice and adults take the results. Not kids.

I happen to have read all the posts before reading the actual article and by doing so it definitely reinforces the old adage, "to each his own".

This couple has a style that people may or may not agree with on how to travel. I would suggest to always travel in a way that best fits your style and do what you enjoy. You would be surprised how many people who travel are ecstatic when returning home and they only visited just the "iconic" tourist stops. That's their style and they are happy. The couple in the article are happy with their style. Neither one is right or wrong.

This article had a purpose of suggesting people get out of their travel comfort zone. Good points. However, many people love their comfort zones and enjoy traveling that way.

To each his own! It was nice Mardee shared the article because it was an interesting read and a quite different point of view.

I think this couple is great. I’ve read a lot of their articles, but missed this one, so thanks, Mardee. It was a fun read.

I am not this adventurous. I kind of would like to be, but I’m just not. That’s okay. I am so grateful for all the travel I’ve been able to do, and I have enjoyed each trip.

Love this article. Thanks for sharing.