Skip to main content

not so down and out in paris and london


just returned from a proper (i.e., longer than a couple of days) vacation in paris, where i had never been and london, where i had visited but did not remember that well. yes, that's yours truly standing on a postcard-worthy little street in monmartre.

both cities are remarkable and not just a little overwhelming.

my first reaction paris, as well as i can recall it (not counting the reaction at the airport, which is really, really, underwhelming) was that i needed larger eyes. because, no matter how much i stretched, how high i raised my eyebrows, my eyes would never be large enough to take in all of the intricate detail of paris. geograhically small, it looks like every square inch of the place was designed with the sole aim of making the hearts of those not fortunate enough to live there flutter with joy and envy.

this sounds like a cliche. it is a cliche. the whole city is a beautiful, romantic, artistic, gastronomic cliche and every year, double the population of canada descends on the city to see what all the fuss is about.

and what is the fuss about? here's a few things that struck me.

1. the gothic spledour of the city's architecture, in particular its churches. i took so many shots of church facades, fountains and the like that i can barely remember which ones correspond to which location.

2. the omnipresence of cafes and cafe culture. every street is littered with them, spilling out onto the sidewalk, offering the opportunity to relax for a few minutes (or a few hours) and watch the effortlessly elegant (and painfully thin) multitudes wander by.

3. best bread in the world, bar none.

4. the world's most famous painting (you know, that one from the da vinci code) is pretty damn cool in person. i really wanted to see madonna of the rocks, which is still my favourite of his, but THE painting is just eerie when you see it in person.

london is awe-inspiring in a different way. everything about the city is on a massive scale and runs at a frenetic pace, at least until you get well outside the city core. i kept getting possessed with the insane urge to start running, because it seemed to be the only way to keep up. this can become exhausting, but also exilihirating. unlike paris, which is still largely in tact, large sections of london, are very modern, many of the older buildings having been destroyed in the blitz. some of the modern touches are eyesores, but some of them are fascinating (such as the building known in local parlance as "the gherkin" for reasons that are obvious once you see it).

some of the things i'll remember from london...

1. the whole thing about how bad london food is has been greatly exaggerated. pub food is fine, but london also has great food from the former colonies, particularly indian. i would like to call particular attention to preem's bengali restaurant on brick lane (corner of hanbury).

2. related to the above, discovering brick lane (centre of the city's bengali community) and the impressive whitechapel art gallery, was a surprise. these aren't places that are on a lot of tourist guides, so the only others travelers you're likely to run into are going to be either a) lost or b) jack the ripper afficionandoes.

3. the museums and galleries in the city overall take a back seat to no one. they are awesome and, best of all, they are free.

so nine days, three time changes, many walks, a lot of flight time and an assload of photos later, i am ready to sleep and sleep and sleep... i feel like i need a vacation.

Comments

dystonia ek said…
The Famous Walks(TM) go international!
You'll have to tell me all about it sometime.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …