Lonely Planet my ass...

So when I was in Varansi, I found some interesting people. The hotel was okay, but most of the people that stayed there weren't treated like I was. The staff cut me breaks everywhere, and charged me less for things than they did the other tourists. One of the managers took me out for a tour and charged me Rs 200 less than he did another group. He also took me out to buy some Varanasi silks, and before I had a chance to bargain, immediately forced them to cut over $150 US off the price. Then he said we had a decent starting point. It may have been for show, but the fact is that it was nice of him to help (I probably got it for $25 less than I would have otherwise, and maybe $20 more than I could have if I hadn't relented because they were going to do a bunch of alterations for me at no cost.) But the restaurant to the hotel was constantly packed with people clutching their travel bible... that damn ubiquitous Lonely Planet guide. It claimed that the food at the restaurant was great. I disagree. I've also decided that for the rest of the trip the only thing that the guide is good for is helping me find phone numbers.

My hotel in Delhi was excellent, yet is missing from the book. The stores that are recommended jack up their prices when they find out that they are in the book. Restaurants get filled even when their food is crap if it says so in the book. The best food I had in Varanasi was found at some little place around the corner, where no one spoke a lick of English, not at a hotel attached to a restaurant. There's nothing inherrantly wronge with the guide, it's the fact that the only people you meet, and the only things that you do if you follow the book do nothing other than expose you to other travellers. There are advantages to that, but it also tends to breed this inbred culture of backpackers that confuses me.

The hotel section for Calcutta, says that the Fairlawn is the only place in town with character. Character in this case is a nice word for kitchy photos of some Anglo-Indian's family and a bunch of poorly maintained knick-knacks. The rooms aren't great, and the atmosphere seems to be designed to shelter people from Calcutta (although seeing as how I had a tough reaction to the city this may be a good thing for lots of people). The Lytton, where I ended up the next day, was described as a top end hotel. It was nice, but to put it in the same category as the Oberoi is insane. Local Calcutta guides talk about the Lytton as a midrange hotel, which is where it belongs, and talk about the Fairlawn as a budget class place (despite the fact that it cost me more than the Lytton). I don't expect perfection from the guide, but whoever rates these hotels needs to readjust some stuff here and there.

Part of it may be what I want to do, is travel comfortably, without breaking the bank. I want clean hotel rooms, with walls and ceilings that don't look like they're about to fall down. I want hotel staff that are helpful, and who don't try to jack the rate when I arrive. So, I might not really want to be dealing with Lonely Planet, but the fact is that Frommer's and the other guides aren't really pitched to me either. I have no doubt that the guides are great for the first world, but travel in India exposes the real divide between high and middle places. Finding the sweet spot for a lot of people is difficult in a country that had such disparities. I guess that's part of the problem. I'm just tired of having to have breakfast in rooms with people who come to India to find something. India definitely changed my perspectives last time, and it continues to do so this time. But the changes are more dramatic when you realise that you're not finding anything that you haven't already brought with you. These discoveries could be found if you just spent the time at home doing different things.

And on the topic of travelling annoyances, I was leaving Varansi and had the following discussion:

Older traveller (to me): You must be an American.
Me: No. I'm a Canadian.
OT: Same thing.
Me: Hardly... I doubt that you'd find many Canadians who agreed with you. Why do you say that?
OT: You're wearing shorts. Everyone knows that in India you should wear long pants to fit in. Only Americans don't wear long pants.
Me: I'll pass that along to my family here. I'm guessing that you're British, and old enough to remember when India was part of the Empire.
OT: Yes, how did you know?
Me: Only an old Brit, with fonder memories of an empire, would have the audacity to tell someone who is clearly more Indian that he is how he should dress. I'm not offending anyone by going to an airport in shorts, and it takes a lot of nerve for you to preach to me about my attire. As for fitting in, I think in the general population my camera is probably a good giveaway. And I'll be sure to pass along your shorts-free message to my family here.

I hate people like that.