basic travel writing observations.

In reading a few travel writers, it seems to me that shorter is better. This may be because the two books I've read are composed of shorter pieces. It just seems that the more focused a piece is, the easier it can be transmitted. The Foreman book (You Can't Get There From Here) was a cohesive narrative, with topical chapters focusing on a particular country separated by segments. The Potts book (Marco Polo Didn't Go There) was a collection of previously published essays, so it was more fragmented. This culture is used to short sound bites versus a longer narrative; think Twitter for goodness sakes. I think of travel narratives from long ago -- Lewis and Clark's diaries for instance. Those don't really fly in this culture. We need shorter fragments for our shorter attention span.

For me, as I write, I need to divide this trip into segments with themes. I need to be focused, to have a reason for each specific fragment. Each essay needs to make a cohesive whole, be wrapped up in itself. It needs to have purpose. I'm not really sure how to predict what I'm going to write about before I go. I have no idea what I'm going to experience. I want to be open to what I'll come into contact with. I know that publication will probably happen in segments, which is why I can't just write one whole piece. I also need at least one piece that could work for the George Fox Journal, one that may be for Juniors Abroad, and one fro the theatre. I hope I have enough to say; we're only there for three weeks.

Side note: what kind of persona should I adopt? The rookie traveler? An observant outsider? What will it be like? There are way too many unknowns.