Comments on: Travel Writing, Annotated

By: V.V. Ganeshananthan

V.V. Ganeshananthan — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:11:02 +0000

@Preston. AGAIN, I wasn’t debating whether tourism would help the country. I was criticizing the quality of the journalism.

My guess is that the Times didn’t think their original take was that great either, since they ran a correction AND now another article, which looks like a massive redo:

http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/travel/14next.html?pagewanted=1

By: Ms. Ogynist

Ms. Ogynist — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:28:58 +0000

Maybe there are no fields other than battlefields, those still remembered, and those long forgotten.

-Wislawa Szymborska

By: V.V. Ganeshananthan

V.V. Ganeshananthan — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:42:58 +0000

The NYT is running a correction on this article.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/travel/10places.html?scp=2&sq=31%20&st=tcse

Scroll to the bottom of the page.

By: vijay

vijay — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:29:58 +0000

Poor Sinhalese could certainly benefit from tourism. I don't think anyone disputes that.

But I think all the commentary here misses one significant point: there's an effort by some hawkish western journalists to portray the way Sri Lanka's victory as an example of how states should deal with terrorism. This article read like it was written by a member of that camp.

By: A

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:16:31 +0000

Preston,

I have been to Sri Lanka. Beaches and hotels are OK. Locals are hadly charming and architecture..what...Italy, Greece, India, China..better places for architecture. Florida is better than Sri Lanka - based on my experience. 30 years is not enough... Sri Lanka to SIngapore...long way to go.

http://arealblogger.blogspot.com/

By: Preston

Preston — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:09:06 +0000

I am all for people traveling — uninformed, naive, shortsighted, carefree people, in addition to us Sepia Mutiny sophisticates. Sri Lanka needs all the help it can get, and tourism revenues are the obvious way boost the economy and provide jobs. The island is not going to be transformed into Singapore overnight (it has been “the next Singapore” for over 30 years), and the Chinese-built deepwater port in Hambantota isn’t going to be finished for another year. So if a goofy Times article creates just a tiny uptick in tourist interest in Sri Lanka, then so much the better. Tourism is a delicate industry even among countries not affected by war, and the hardy types who know Sri Lankan history and travel there fully informed tend not be the ones who spend a lot of money. The big spenders are the ones who don’t care about Sri Lankan history or politics — they just want the nice beaches and fancy hotels, charming locals, and some mystical architecture. So let them come, and let them subscribe to the New York Times.

By: elephant

elephant — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:39:03 +0000

It really is a beautiful country but even absent the highly visible militarization, poverty and urban overpopulation the country couldn’t hope to measure up to the description in the article. Also, no mention of landmines, which still make travel in many areas dangerous.

By: plks

plks — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:48:34 +0000

v.v., thank you for bringing attention to an often-overlooked topic. i, for one, found your analysis crisp, insightful, and humorous. have you considered stand-up comedy? thanks for a compelling read. best regards.

By: V.V. Ganeshananthan

V.V. Ganeshananthan — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:47:32 +0000

Briefly, as I am otherwise employed today: There seems little point to repeating myself. I'll just quote Cicatrix, who wrote, "So the post criticized the article for the writing, not for the topic, and that's been lost in the ensuing discussion of whether tourism itself is good or bad." Thanks to Cicatrix, Ennis, Kharghosh, Dr. A, and others who noted my actual argument.

Jaded professor, I'd be interested in the critiques you're referencing, if you want to say what they are. I am a sometimes-jaded professor myself. (But not so jaded, I might note, as to think that the Times can't manage to have writing that is good, accurate, AND interesting. It's not a choice between crappy writing + tourism OR nothing.)

Finally, anyone interested in my political positions should look at the Lanka Solidarity website and read it for themselves. Naresh apparently didn't; we haven't advocated sanctions.

By: Maitri

Maitri — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:12:25 +0000

This post is very important in light of the possible economic futures of New Orleans and Venice. The problem is that when a place hard up for cash but “exotic” or different is marketed like this, the place ultimately becomes a caricature of itself, becomes not itself, in order to satisfy the economic dictates of those who stand to make money off such marketing. And those who make money are folks in the tourism industry – all the way from businesspeople to busboys – but only those in the industry. Everyone and everything else is expended for this venture.

“Let’s turn into something else in order to make money to retain what we are.” Sustainability and far-sightedness do not appear to be the hallmarks of modern business development and visitors’ bureaus.