Aug 302010
 

I recently wrote about bloggers who seek to elevate themselves by launching unprovoked attacks on other writers in their field. As if on cue, someone has tried it with me.

A British writer, whom I have never met nor named in any of my published work, went after me for the warning I wrote for WalletPop about iPhone travel apps, which often require expensive data connections to function. The problem lies, essentially, in 1) exorbitantly pricey international access and 2) apps that suck data from the network without telling you how much you’re actually using. People get routinely slammed with massive bills, and they are taught by AT&T itself to thwart disaster by switching their iPhones into Airplane Mode the minute they board the flight to fly abroad.

The bigger the claws, the weaker the venom (Photo by H. Dragon)

This guy hated the example I supplied of a $3,000 bill because it happened in 2007 — even though I linked to the report of it so readers could fully investigate for themselves. He was fixated on the fact apps weren’t yet for sale then, but the truth is that astronomical charges unquestionably still exist. A friend went to Toronto for two days last week and was charged $300 for just 20MB of usage. (Can you imagine a full vacation’s worth of damage?)  He hated the headline that said a person can spend “thousands” using data on vacation. (They can. You have to know the tricks.) He also didn’t say much about my publication, which is owned by Aol, or post constructive comments beneath the story in question, where true corrections would presumably most help the public, choosing instead go after me by name in a post published on his home platform.

Unfortunately, this man was disingenuous about his primary assault. For one, he neglected to disclose he has a dog in the fight: He makes and sells travel apps. He only admitted, near the bottom as a sort of footnote, to being “an app developer.”

Fortunately, his tirade has not gotten much traction, which is probably good for him, because the unpleasant truth hiding behind the attacks is that his own guide apps work best when they access Google Maps, otherwise, you don’t get to enjoy the entire functionality. (It must also be pointed out that Google Maps was one of the culprits in the $3,000 bill this guy didn’t like reading about.)

This is what my critic told his followers about his apps:

“All our travel apps store content when you first download them. All the images, all the information, it’s all inside the handset and you don’t need a data connection to access it.”

Notice the perhaps-tactical omission of the word maps (and what good is a travel guide without a map?). I can’t locate a clear truth on this one. This screenshot (below), taken from the App Store product page of one of the apps he is associated with, contradicts his presentation of the facts: As you can see, it declares that users “need a 3G or wi-fi connection to view Google maps [sic] or external website links.” Another sales page for another of his products words it as “you only need an internet connection…” for the same features. Still other sales pages for apps he sells make no mention at all of the warning, but I don’t know if that means the maps are stored offline for those. Now, data connection for external sites can be forgiven, but when it comes to protecting the traveler from shocking mobile phone bills, Google Maps is dangerous indeed.

This app needs the Web for full functionality: Its product page from the App Store

I can understand why this man might object to my call on consumers to be smart about their travel app purchases, because he stands to lose money if I drum up awareness about iPhone app design that allows data charges to creep in the back door. Most consumers are not as versed as app designers, and many people have no idea how much they stand to lose by using a travel app that accesses the Internet.

He also didn’t seek any comment from me for his first post despite the fact he repeatedly named me and invented assumptions about my professional practices.

Those omissions, together, raise significant questions about his motives and standards.

Considering the omissions so far (and there are other perceived misrepresentations that reach outside the scope of iPhone apps), it will surprise no one to learn that his three posts about me, plus updates, are selectively presented to make it appear as if it were me who picked the fight. He even published tweets I sent to his personal account to his wider platform, and then claimed it was “defamation.” It is not defamation, however, if 1) it’s true, and 2) you yourself are the one disseminating it.

Regardless, with his third attack post, he’s finally taking a more reader-conscious course by countering with solid information of actual service to the purchasing public. This morning, the guy put up a list of 11 data-use workarounds for using your iPhone while you travel. I must say there’s quite a bit of helpful information in there, particularly if you have bought one of his travel products (of which I have no opinion otherwise) and want to use Google Maps.

But if expensive data connection expense isn’t much of a problem, why did he feel the need to craft a long list of helpful tips, tricks, and hacks?

Having written this, I fully expect a fourth installment in his self-serving vendetta, and more fixation on minor points at the expense of the whole. I know I have played somewhat into his game. But this man’s hyperbolic campaign obscures the truth behind it — a truth that’s obviously more complicated than a rabble-rousing 140-character tweet. His vociferous objections to my consumer reporting remind us that you should never believe everything you read on the Web. Motives are shadowy things.

Update: I was invited to discuss this topic on Arthur Frommer and Pauline Frommer’s national radio show. You can get the .mp3 here; the chat starts about midway through. I encourage everyone who uses apps to make sure they understand the possible expense of data usage, and to be duly appraising of those with vested interests who try to deflect attention from, or blame consumers for, this very costly problem.

Aug 292010
 

I tried, but I just can’t get behind the so-called “flashpacking” trend. I have real problems with it.

In the beginning, when flashpacking was first named as a trend, it sounded like something the trust funders were doing: Go abroad with your laptop, your HD video camera, your iPods and iPhones, and use them to stay connected and maybe to document your trip for the people back home. It’s said that flashpackering was born of cheap budget flights, as somewhat affluent workers could now choose to sojourn wherever they wanted, and bring their goodies with them for comfort, and wear nice clothes and eat really good food. In short, they want to take their consumerism with them.

My classist assumptions aside, at the very least, I insist on traveling with the bare minimum of possessions, and the mere thought of a laptop in my pack makes my lower back ache. I also couldn’t stand having to block “recharge time” into days that I’d rather keep spontaneous.

Now things have changed, and I recognize that being a flashpacker no longer says much about your income level back home. People of all classes — except the extremely low ones, who are unlikely to be backpacking anyway — can now afford some kind of device, and many hostels offer the free Wi-Fi necessary to connect them. Four years ago, too, having a laptop in your satchel might mark you as a crime target at a hostel, but now, a significant proportion of travelers have one. So flashpacking may not say as much to your fellow travelers about your status as it did just a short while ago.

But if you flashpack, it probably says a lot about what kind of countries you prefer to visit.

That’s because it’s very difficult for a sensitive traveler to take expensive electronics out of their packs in a countries where extreme poverty is the norm. Some of my favorite sights from my travels went undocumented by me because I wasn’t willing to take out my camera when I saw them. That fascinating procession of holy men in India, that animal sacrifice in Bangladesh, the flies crawling on the open eyes of laughing children in Luxor — the list is long, and lives mostly in my journals. I kept my few electronics hidden, and not because I was trying to avoid being robbed.

From www.how-to-travel-the-world.com

No, there are vast swaths of the planet where I don’t take out my expensive equipment because it feels like an insult to the people who are there. When five-year-olds go shoeless and beg for food in the streets, I do not want to flaunt my American wealth by using a frivolous luxury item such as a camera or an iPhone. Even the cheapest, flimsiest, D-grade models are worth more than many people make in a year. I refuse, and I refuse to snatch their image and turn it into a personal commodity that forever marks the value of my trip. Sometimes, journalism and imperialism are one and the same.

There’s also something liberating about not caring if your backpack is stolen when it’s strapped to the roof of an overnight bus in India or tossed onto a luggage canoe in the Okavango Delta. Carrying gadgets around is like toting a nest full of baby birds that demand daily feeding; it’s like that assignment in middle school when you had to take care of an egg as if it was an infant. Your journey is simply more liberating without them.

It seems to me that if you flashpack, you’re probably hitting the road well traveled: Europe, parts of urban Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand, and so forth. It would be pretty much unthinkable for me, as a person with an overabundance of empathy, to use my appliances in many other places on this Earth — meaning most of this planet. I’m glad they’re traveling at all, but this mode only works in a subset of the world’s destinations.

Of course there are ways to do it humbly, and there are ways to use your culture’s clutter without rubbing it in the faces of the people who are hosting you. But  flashpacking, in my perspective, limits the number of places you can effectively see — at least if you want to use that stuff you brought. I’d bet a lot of flashpackers are markedly more discreet about their swag when they’re in the Third World, and that says something to me.

About eight years ago, I got in a passively aggressive verbal sparring match with a developer who told me, the travel writer, that I’d better get on board with the Palm and other devices, because hand-held travel guides were “the future” of travel writing. He himself was throwing himself wholeheartedly behind them.

I told him he was wrong. They might take off among business travelers, because they are generally wealthy and insulated from poverty. They might even do pretty well in American, Canadian and Western European cities. But there was no chance that a sensitive traveler was going to whip out a smartphone on a street corner in Mexico City or Mumbai or Nairobi or countless other major cities on this planet, and to think so hinted at a complete blindness to the realities of the enduring worldwide inequities of class.

The open use of devices, I told him, would always be something restricted to the wealthy Western world. There is a significant portion of this planet where people can’t find clean water every day, or wood to burn, or medicine to keep themselves alive. To assume we’re all going to digital is the grossest form of ethnocentrism. We aren’t, because we can’t.

That’s flashpacking. It’s a prerogative of the rich, and often marks an indulgence in naval-gazing, and anytime I tote the burdens of my culture and my class into a place where I intend to better understand the locals, I miss out on the richness of a full experience.

What she really wants is the iPhone 4 (Prince Albert, South Africa)

Aug 242010
 

You know about my passion for connecting to American history, and for remembering how we’re all product of it, and how much I love dispelling the patronizing myth that the people who came before us were somehow simpler than we are. When it comes to a geek like me, there’s no bigger geek-out than meeting the man who personifies my beliefs about retelling the stories of American history.

It’s Ken Burns! The actual Ken Burns! You know: The Civil War, The War, Jazz, Baseball … I brought him to WalletPop today for an interview for his four-hour follow-up to Baseball, called The Tenth Inning, which airs in late September. I interviewed him last year, too, when he was promoting The National Parks. He won an Emmy for that last Saturday. I taped this interview the day after Letterman taped his.

Was it fascinating? Was it rangy? Was it heaven? Yes. A grand slam. We talked for a half hour — sadly, to be whittled down in editing — about baseball, doping, corruption, Barry Bonds’ asterisk (he doesn’t think he should have one) the Caribbean player as an analogue to Jewish and Irish immigrant labor, American culture and history, the common threads that tie all generations of Americans together, and Meryl Streep (who will voice Eleanor Roosevelt in one of his upcoming films).

Me, documentary idol Ken Burns, Aol producer Ken Shadford

I wonder if I could get Ken and David McCullough and Sarah Vowell in the same room at the time time. My head might explode.

I always say that “History is just something that didn’t happen to you.” Today, I feel like something happened to me.

Aug 232010
 

A new souvenir tee-shirt soon to be on sale at Disneyland and Walt Disney World will sport a frisky turn of phrase. The shirt, themed to the water flume spectacular Splash Mountain, will proclaim “It was soaking awesome.”

The shirt, previewed on Disney Parks’ official blog today, is sure to be given a pass in the Shatner-induced national debate over acceptance of everyday vulgarity. To me, the thing is clearly a play on a common phrase involving the f-word. I’m definitely not a prude, and my language can be worse than this, but it does seem somewhat like a betrayal of a brand.

I guess it’s nowhere near as shocking as Song of the South, the movie upon which the Splash Mountain attraction itself is based. I will never understand why Disney green-lit a major ride based on a movie deemed so racist that the company still refuses to release it in the United States. When it was first made, Adam Clayton Powell called it “an insult to minorities.”

So I guess another baby step toward an idiocracy isn’t much of a concern in comparison to stereotypes of kindly old ex-slaves who live, like magic gnomes, in tumbledown shacks, waiting to teach young white boys it’s better to live back on the plantation. That central character of Uncle Remus was deleted from the flume version, but I guess minstrelsy is still acceptable if you apply it to rabbits and bears, and I guess a reference to the word fucking is fine for your 8-year-old’s chest if you make it plausibly deniable.

I guess 'I'm a mother soaker' was rejected


It’s still my favorite ride at the Magic Kingdom, though. And the lavish Japanese version could blow your mind. Then again, the Japanese can buy Song of the South, too.

Aug 192010
 

PBS showed a live telecast of the Broadway revival of South Pacific tonight as the show prepares to close. I saw this production, which opened two years ago, for the first time last Tuesday, and I liked it so much I made sure to watch it again tonight. I know there are a lot of people who roll their eyes, thinking that it’s just another fuddy-duddy, old-style showtune cheese plate.

But that’s truly unfair. It was a product of a different time, and we are all just tourists to that time. That’s why we don’t understand it. It’s not corn. It’s culture shock.

P.T.S.D in the S.P.

To understand any piece of popular entertainment, you have to understand the society that produced it. And to understand South Pacific, you have to understand two things: the Pacific military theatre of World War Two and its reverberations in American culture in 1949, when the show premiere at the Majestic Theatre, where The Phantom of the Opera is now.

I could write an entire book on this topic. But start with this: In 1949, the people sitting through the theatre had only recently gotten through the war. By the opening strains of the overture, I have read, many of them began sobbing. The memories flooded back both for servicemen and the families who had stood by them. It was far too close to them and brought up the most visceral emotions a human can confront. Many of them had fought in the Pacific, which made the miseries of Europe look pale in comparison. There’s no way to exaggerate what the Pacific battles were like: the gore, the mental and physical torture, the fearful waiting, the doomed sense of being trapped, hemmed in by encroaching killers.

In Italy, a G.I. stood a chance of hiding in the forests. On the ocean, though when torpedos struck your submarine or your Navy ship — the men in South Pacific are mostly SeaBees, charged with building airstrips and the like on newly taken islands — there was nothing for you but a vast sea with sharks beneath and Japanese planes and blistering sun above. The islands were rigged with explosives and snipers’ nests. There was not enough water, nor reliable supply routes for food. There was disease, there was the stench of rot. And above all, there was the feeling of being absolutely trapped, and of waiting for your eventual doom. When one island was gained, usually with an unspeakable loss of life, the men packed up to another island where it began again. It was because of the deadening accumulation of Pacific battles that America felt it had no choice but to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to end it completely.

That was the real South Pacific, and that is the information that every single American carried heavily in their minds when they attended the show. So the wallop that South Pacific packs came from what Rodgers and Hammerstein were not saying. The dissection of racism  in “You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught” has been exhaustively discussed because racism became the United States’ obsessive issue in the 1950s and 1960s. There’s a reason the musical was only the second to win the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, which back then meant something, and that song certainly played a major part.

The original window card

But there are other, less explicit messages, and America’s post-war, Hawaii-fed style obsession with anything Polynesian may have overshadowed many of them. Largest of them, in my mind, is that at the end of the show, everyone marking time on that island (which is unnamed in the script) is finally called up to board ships and go fight the Japanese. Students of history, and modern audiences who paid attention to the giant campaign map onstage, noticed how close the base was to the island of Guadalcanal. So when the SeaBeas, pilots, and nurses march offstage at the end of the show, they are not going to dance a jig and kiss each other in Times Square. They are going to one of the most savage campaigns in the war: 29 ships lost, 7,100 killed. To give a clue of how brutal it was, the Japanese took only 4 prisoners. These characters are going to die. People in 1949 knew that all too well, because they probably loved people who suffered over the six months in Gudalcanal.

That includes our reckless Luther Billis, whose unspoken love for Nellie Forbush has been denied — the surest sign of a tragic hero, literarily speaking. Many of those young men died in the dirt without having ever known love. Knowing that, “There Is Nothing Like a Dame” becomes, to me, a heartwrenching keen. The Lincoln Center production captures this eerie truth without saying it. There are no words on the page for it because the original writers didn’t need to say it. Instead, the company, marching in battle fatigues, reprises “Honey Bun” with a distant, almost lethargic softness. They are already dead. The song they choose to sing, as they go to their torturous deaths (or at the very least, life-changing pain), is, intentionally, the silliest one in the show, and it makes us realize that up until now, they have been teasing each other because they know, deep down, a truth they cannot openly discuss. Their island was not a paradise after all. They’re marching to their likely ends, under the scorching sun. The audience knew it, which was what made the preceding frivolity so beautiful and so poignant.

It’s not just the leads whose unspoken stories would have wrenched viewers in 1949: Bloody Mary, who seems at first like mere comic relief, a Tonkinese Stepin Fetchit, in fact schemes to prostitute her own daughter so they can escape “paradise” and cash in on the American Dream. The character of Liat is so eager to subjugate herself for the hallowed American, Lt. Cable, that she never speaks. Her entire character, then, is an embodiment of hungry desperation for American wealth. Former Navy seamen would have met many such people, living stranded on their islands, during their own military waiting games. Thirty years later, in Vietnam, they’d discard women like them again for the same reasons, abandoning them rather than fitting them into the jigsaw of their consumerist/racist lives back home. (For more on that, see Miss Saigon.)

Late in the second act, Luther Billis tries selling some medicine to one SeaBee, who rejects the transaction because the pills are actually standard issue. A moment later, Billis tries the same sale on a nurse, who tells him that the pills are junk and officers use something else now. It’s a subtle complaint of the military power structure, and the feeling that enlisted men were cannon fodder, that is lost on most modern audiences.

"Here am I, your special island": Guadalcanal, where Billis & co. ended up

Nellie Forbush’s change of heart about Emile de Becque’s dead Polynesian wife might seem undeveloped by Hammerstein’s and Joshua Logan’s script. First she’s opposed to marrying him, and suddenly she’s wishing him back. But every audience member in 1949 noticed the critical moment. They saw what she had just gone through: She hears about the death of an airman friend, which causes her to envision the death of her love. Every person in America had lost someone they knew in World War Two, and everyone knew the power of personal transformation, the rueful sense of lives never lived, that the experience brought to them.

The audience knew why Nellie had changed: She had brushed near death, as had nearly every living person on the planet. And so the audience wept.

If someone had written a masterpiece about 9/11 in 2008, we might have a slight sense of how they felt in 1949. But even that wouldn’t compare, since so few of us actually lost loved ones in that attack. There are many things about 9/11 that we still find too painful to describe, and images we collectively agree not to show — and because we are all well aware of the dark nuances of what happened, we wouldn’t have to anyway. R&H felt confident skirting the shadows, too. The word “Japanese” is barely spoken in South Pacific.

Nellie, in the end, chooses to stay on the island with Emile. Turned off by her own shallowness, which was bred by American culture, she decides to isolate with her Frenchman and adoptive children. Think about that in 1949. Most of the servicemen came home. She stayed. She didn’t come back to America because she found something more real. Can you imagine what a bittersweet message that was, coming off the fervent patriotism whipped up during the War Years? It was both a rejection of the United States and and embrace of the values we’ve always assumed we held dear, but may actually not.

I had only seen one other production of this before last week, and in it, Robert Goulet, playing de Becque,  strutted around the stage like Ron Burgundy. It was a bad show. South Pacific is often done poorly because it’s not understood, and it’s not understood because Rodgers and Hammerstein understood their audience so well, and left the most important undertones off the page.

I’m always struck about how self-centered we are about our entertainment. We forget everything always comes from its time, and seeing something made for another generation ideally involves the same mental preparation you’d make when traveling to another country. It’s culture shock. It’s a form of travel. And to navigate your way, you must always adjust what you think you know — and never assume you know more than the people in the past. They knew. They just didn’t have to discuss it.

Danny Burstein and a pre-'Glee' Matthew Morrison, in the revival's original cast, 2008

Aug 182010
 

This one was fun, and it had me getting paid to eat maple-glazed bacon donuts at the Nickel Diner.

Not recorded: Me getting kicked out of the forecourt of the Chinese Theatre for having a video camera. I felt like a 60 Minutes correspondent, only without the muckraking.

The original post on WalletPop explains everything in more detail, including the cross-L.A. walk I took that gave me the idea to make this to begin with. I cannot overemphasize how much I adore downtown Los Angeles when viewed in the context of its rich and mostly forgotten (by white people) history. Every time I’m there, I see more and learn more.

One of the new travel whippersnappers did a podcast in which he called the idea of discussing Los Angeles without a car “cliché.” To which I might answer: Then why haven’t I ever seen anyone do this video before?  (The same writer also admitted to covering the same topic himself. I looked it up. Tellingly, he never researched the possibility of taking the subway, dismissing it with “everyone I spoke to said that the Metro was useless.”)

A few days after this was published on WalletPop.com, my dear friend Brendan Milburn honored his 40th birthday by walking across Los Angeles, too. He went from Pasadena to the ocean and he found is as enriching as I did. Helluva way to turn 40, Brendan! You’re kicking ass even as you walk 20 miles.

Aug 162010
 

I have a soft spot in my heart for this one, and not because I’ve been eating too many french fries.

I pitched this idea to Disneyland for about a year and a half before they were kind enough to acquiesce to my bringing a camera to the park during operating hours. I think the resulting video is lovely. I have a great job, but I hope CBS News Sunday Morning is paying attention to these.

Major praise to my camera dude Ken, who got those hard-to-get shots from the moving train, including the fleeting view from within Splash Mountain.

Aug 152010
 

One of the changes that has come upon the writing business in the past few years is the rise of bloggers. Four years ago, if a writer wanted to work, he or she had to find someone to edit, publish, and distribute them. For that, they got paid.

Now, though, anyone who thinks they can write can write. Anyone who thinks they’re an expert in a field can publish. In fact, you don’t even have to be able to write or know stuff — you just have to be able to convince other people that you’re worth following.

This week at Aol, I published an interview with a traveler who makes money this way: He travels and he writes about it online. He also writes downloadable books about it and other subjects. So to make the money he needs to live, he has to convince as many people as possible that he’s worth listening to. That means putting himself out there on Twitter, at conferences, on the social scene, and so forth.

Hobart, Australia. January 2003.

It’s the new way: Do a podcast, get onto Huffington Post, build the Twitter followers — whatever it takes to be a “Blogger Brand.” Although the information you bring to the table isn’t incidental, because poor information will always bleed followers, it’s no longer the primary concern. This is not to take away from any of the people who really know their stuff, but the appearance of expertise, and of productivity, is what’s paramount. Expertise is becoming increasingly illusory, or at least, it has the potential to be.

Over the past few days, the travel blogging world has seen a lot of in-fighting. I’ve seen a several bloggers try to lift themselves up, and try to garner fans and applause, by stepping on the faces of their colleagues. One blogger accuses another of being a snob. A third highlights the fight in his own blog and asks “are we being snobs or thin-skinned,” while a fourth and fifth pile on in the comments section. It’s like high school with category tags.

Nearly everyone in the fray has something to sell. One of the combatants also pointed out that nearly everyone in the battle began travel writing in the Blogging Age and has little publication experience, where, at least for the little guys, the rules were different, more congenial, and more purely merit-based. In this week’s battles, every Blogger Brand player has a dog in the fight because they want to have the most fervent followers and devoted downloaders.

When print ruled the world, the story was the thing. Now, it’s the brand. Writers engage in in-fighting and jealous smack-downs, which may almost seem designed just to make followers’ tails wag in agreement. Win the smack-down, gain followers, and ding the competing brand.

I predict this kind of pettiness is going to be more and more common across all areas of the Web. If Blogger Brands are the new commodity, then you can’t always win by having the best material. But you may win if you undermine your colleagues.

It’s terribly unhealthy. Where is it heading?

Aug 142010
 

I shot this video in Chicago recently. I had heard that there was a new exhibition about weddings in Chicago, and I called the Chicago History Museum to fish around for an angle that might be right for me to cover for Aol. I was stunned to hear there absolutely was.

The curator of the costume collection at the museum was on his way to the airport to fly somewhere, and I myself had just stepped off the plane and arrived in Chicago. We met with enough time in the middle to put out this interview.

There were some personally terrifying moments during the shoot. My camera kept blanking out on me and erasing whatever clip I had just shot, and in the middle of Long giving a dazzlingly articulate and compelling answer about Americans shopping history, my screen would throw up a warning alert that announced, essentially, that I’m a loser. When I got home, I realized with a sickening, sinking feeling that about 40 percent of my footage had failed to save thanks to this malfunction, which was related to an SD card that was too slow to capture all the HD wedding goodness I was feeding it. Most of my favorite sound bites dodged the techno-bullet.

Naturally, the entire story of how weddings became such a supercharged consumer event is much more complicated than I could present in a two-minute vignette, but it’s still rich with truth, and it says a lot about our society’s fascination with imitating the rich. Don’t let anyone tell you America is a classless society. We’re as bad as the English.

Don’t you love that guy’s voice and diction? We had a lovely time listening to him on the footage.

This story ended up doing very well on Digg despite the fact it was submitted by two different users. I think it racked up nearly 800 Diggs in total, and it made the front page of Aol.com.