A while back the philosopher Agnes Callard published an article in The New Yorker called "The Case Against Travel" where she argued that tourism is an overrated experience, almost an institutionalized form of bad-faith: you go abroad to experience some sort of change, but then come back the same person. All that's different is that you saw and did whatever there was to see and do wherever you went. I don't think I agree with the article, but it did give me pause. Is tourism essentially role-playing enlightenment using other places, other cultures as props?
What I like about this book is that Theroux clearly doesn't give a fuck about forcing his long voyage around the Meditteranean, from Gibraltar around to Tangiers, into an enlightenment narrative. Unlike tourists insistently chasing charming "authentic" experiences, he really does genuinely just want to experience whatever there is to experience wherever he is, which will include, among other things, pharmacy store porno mags, the pervasive dogshit on the streets of Marseilles, a bunch of cheap hotels with bad food, and the of tourists and pushy street vendors, though it also includes plenty of genuinely charming incidents, like a stop-over village where the writer Carlo Levi lived, a period where Theroux hangs with a trio of chill, elderly Arab men, and a visit to the famous expat Paul Bowles in Tangiers.
