shorne

As another introverted person who travels alone, I found this message interesting. I had imagined that the lounge in the solo section would be noisy, with lots of television and such that would drive me away. Funny that it's just the opposite. What is meant by a crew-member-hosted solo meet-up? Someone from the crew tries to encourage sociability? Maybe we make such poor raw material that that is doomed to failure…

Indeed. I was surprised. I even asked one of them what possible reason I would have to spend more money with her agency than with the cruise line itself, particularly when the latter was just a matter of operating a Web site whereas former involved a lengthy rigmarole on the telephone. She had no answer. I'd like very much to know what happened here. I was careful to make sure that I was comparing rates for exactly the same thing.

Or the first outbreak of panic during an emergency, when people discover too late that maybe it would have been a good idea to learn the procedure just in case it was needed.

Much more stylish than a baseball cap. I prefer my trusty Basque beret. But never indoors.

I can't claim to know the dynamics of this line of business in any detail, but there seem to be some countervailing considerations. Yes, the profits come overwhelmingly from ancillary purchases; tickets hardly matter. From a strictly pecuniary point of view, the cruises themselves are little more than vehicles for trapping people into captivity such that they must spend money with the company if they are not prepared (as most are not) to do without or shop around on shore. That's a crude way to put it, but realistically that's how it is. And those of us who don't readily drop wads of cash are not the most coveted. On the other hand, older people tend to have more money and more time for cruises. It may not be best policy to discount those loyal customers who have been coming back for many years. An occasional bauble or party is nothing compared to the vast amount of food that cruise lines blithely waste.

Well, I'm one of those old-fashioned people who read ratty old books rather than using one of those devices. Admittedly compactness and light weight are big advantages, but it seems that there's no way to back up the books that one has purchased. Maximising revenue-generating space is understandable, but again it has the effect of putting certain tastes ahead of others. Libraries and bridge tables—or for that matter shuffleboard and religious services—take up space (and money) without generating a penny, so they'll be sidelined; casinos, shops, and beauty parlours generate a lot of money but don't appeal to some of us. That just means that it's harder for people with less conventional tastes or interests to find a suitable cruise line or cruise. That's unsurprising: after all, what is profitable is likely also to have broad appeal.

What about those adults among us who don't want to be segregated into «kid-free» ghettos in what is otherwise a juvenile dictatorship?

I ended up buying the cruise from Princess, through its Web site, at the very rate that every travel agency that I called on the telephone exceeded. Yes, I had gone all the way through the entire process, just short of payment, and then called travel agencies in the expectation of getting a better deal. Every agency charged more, in some cases a couple of thousand dollars more. And when I did complete the transaction through Princess, I got exactly the rate that had been shown on the Web site all along.

I wasn't disparaging the food on the buffet; not having gone near it, I know nothing about it. It may well have been of excellent quality. All that I said is that I myself didn't have any. «I never ate in the buffet» is not a misconception but a fact. Nor did I pay for any «specialty» restaurant; whatever was on the menu at the dining room was fine with me. Yes, I'm an amateur sommelier, on the dangerous end. And I was deeply disappointed by the wine on my previous cruise. Interesting to know that Oceania does better on that score. A manager on the ship confided the predictable fact that good wine would be wasted on most of the passengers, so mostly plonk was kept in stock (though he did slip me the occasional glass, and on one night a whole bottle, of better wine). Why mass-market cruises? Well, there have been only two so far (one of them yet to come). The first wasn't really my choice; the second was, but I chose it for its itinerary, and, yes, after trying for three months to arrange any of a number of more specialised/expensive cruises that just wouldn't work for one reason or another. Have I made a poor choice? Maybe. I hope not.

On the one cruise that I have taken, someone came round for a moment to provide ice in the evening and leave a piece of chocolate and some literature for the following day. Although I was grateful for the ice, I certainly would not have expected to have the towels changed or anything else of that nature. Hotels used to change the sheets and the towels every single day, even though those of us who don't belong to the hereditary nobility do not get such lavish treatment at home. Fortunately, when the same guest is staying for a few consecutive nights, some hotels now have the sense to allow for using the same towels again, or making the bed with the same sheets. While we're on the subject, I clean my own room in a hotel to the extent that I can: I don't strew papers and such all about, but I do my best to clean up anything that is spilt and to leave things in reasonable order. The staff are there for ordinary maintenance, not to clean up any arbitrary mess that someone decides to make. We don't have the right to create an undue burden. The complaint about lacking ice cream after 9:30 in the evening seems a bit petty. Being frozen, ice cream cannot just be left out; presumably the equipment has to be cleaned and put away at some point, and nighttime seems to be the most convenient moment. Isn't there enough food on a ship to keep you satisfied until the ice cream is put out again the next day?

That wouldn't bother me at all: I haven't watched television since 1987. But I shall still turn the set on long enough to watch the video.

Norwegian has single cabins, with a lounge (not sure about a dining room) devoted to them. Perhaps they were all sold out, but a cruise to the South Pacific that I considered a few months ago just came up with double the fare (though tips and a few other charges were not doubled). I also wondered whether the lounge would really make up for the tininess of the room, which isn't much bigger than the bed. On my other cruise, I never once went to the buffet; I ate only in the dining room, except for a couple of times when I just called room service. And I happened to be with a friend on that trip. We just had a table to ourselves. I'm disinclined to be assigned to a haphazard table with others, though open to eating with people whom I've met. So I've requested a table to myself for the first few nights. Admittedly that's no way to meet people… Clever suggestion of going to a queer group. I would not have considered that. Bridge was advertised on my other cruise, and I did show up, only to find that there was only a single table. I'd like to play again—I still have some master points from the last time I played, more than twenty years ago—, but I never find three other people with whom to play. Apparently there's some interest in bridge on this upcoming cruise (I've already asked). I certainly don't feel above anyone else, though I am a bit standoffish or at least socially inept.

Interesting. I should look for German cruises; hadn't thought about that, perhaps because Germany doesn't have much of a coast. One British cruise line doesn't take anyone under age 50! Perhaps that's going a bit far: 49-year-olds don't seem like a distinctly immature group. But I do meet the standard (you can saw me open and count the rings). Maybe it's worth another look.

Not at all. I wasn't complaining, just asking candidly for recommendations that would be more in line with my admitted unconventional preferences. Quite a few people have made helpful suggestions. I try to do the same when, for example, someone asks me for a wine that matches a very particular profile. Nor do I go around wondering who is or is not «my intellectual equal». But it's probably fair to assume that an especially cerebral atmosphere is unlikely to be found on a ship that removes its library in order to make space for go-karts or Mickey Mouse. As you said, there are many other ways to travel. I availed myself of many of them long before setting foot on a cruise ship. They're still better choices for me, but I wouldn't mind exploring cruises that might also prove satisfactory.

Thanks for the observations. Someone else had told me to focus on the overall cost rather than the surcharge for travelling alone, and I suppose that there's something to be said for that, although in practice the overall cost is likely to be high if there is a stiff surcharge unless, as you said, vacancies drive the fare down. Some of the cruises to the polar regions also reduce or eliminate their single supplements. Perhaps the high cost of these and the limited interest in them yield a lot of unsold cabins. I had assumed that this business of not allowing people to bring wine, beyond a token bottle or two, was a way to force them to consume the overpriced offerings on board. But maybe there's an element of responsibility, too—maintaining some control over consumption. Paul Gauguin had an appealing itinerary about a month ago, and it even seemed affordable (maybe there were vacancies?), but I wasn't able to take advantage of it.

And that's fine (though they might not afford much insulation in a Canadian winter). I just don't like to see them indoors. A friend of mine was annoyed to be asked to remove his cap at a restaurant, but I didn't blame the staff for upholding the rule that gentlemen do not wear hats indoors.

I have looked into Hurtigruten, yes. It used to be limited to Norway, but now it even goes to the Caribbean and other distant places. Interesting that it maintains Norwegian meals.

Thanks. I hadn't expected anyone to enjoy reading that; I was afraid of giving offence. As for dressing up, although I do appreciate ceremony from time to time, I could do without it on a cruise: carrying the required clothes and shoes is a burden, not least when I already have to bring quite a bit of clothing for hot, cool, and wet conditions. But when formal dress (or casual dress, for that matter) is expected, I either comply or avoid the venue, and in this case I prefer to comply. And although I don't wear baseball caps myself, I have nothing against them when they are worn for baseball or other outdoor pursuits; I just don't want to see them at dinner. Men shouldn't wear hats indoors anyway.

Thanks for the suggestion. Certainly some of those cruises are out of my price range, but, as you said, others may actually be affordable, especially since they often include flights and other costly necessities. And there are a few itineraries that might tempt me.

Thanks for acknowledging my concerns. It's good that you and your wife can enjoy those cruises despite some annoying behaviour from others. Viking, already expensive as you pointed out, seems to charge single people double as a matter of course, so it's probably unaffordable for me unless a special discount comes along. I have looked into Windstar, a possible option.

«Expeditionary» sounds promising. It's probably what I had in mind with those cruises to the polar regions. Funny that you should mention Viking. Just a few days ago I came across an article in which the founder called it the thinkers' cruise line rather than the drinkers' cruise line, or something close (I remember the rhyme). That certainly caught my attention. Most of their European cruises wouldn't appeal to me (I'd sooner travel on my own and spend more time in the different places), but some of their exotic ones might. Some of their cruises in Norway and Iceland might have been better choices than the one that I've booked. Obviously their cruises are more expensive, but some things do come at a cost. River cruises? Without being dogmatic on the subject, I suspect that the sorts that go up and down the Danube or the Rhine might not be for me, but maybe one on the Amazon would be worth considering (as long as it had good air conditioning!). And you're right about the remote chance of uniformly good behaviour among a thousand people, especially when unlimited food or whatever is on offer. I don't expect perfection, and typically I can just roll my eyes at bad behaviour and move on unless the situation gets out of hand. But I'd prefer to find environments that are compatible with my tastes, and most of the mainstream cruises appear not to be.

Thank you for the restrained comments. I know that some cruises do stop in Vanuatu. I nearly took one myself recently (yes, an expensive one); I changed my mind because of travel-related difficulties that need not be discussed here. Some of the cruises that go to Vanuatu visit, again, what is or may as well be a private island—some uninhabited place that might as well be in the Caribbean, or even at Disney World. That's not what I have in mind. Others start in Australia and return a week later. I might take one if I lived in Australia, but I wouldn't go all the way from Canada for one. The suggestion of finding a specialised travel agent is a good one. I shall try. I hadn't thought about a freighter, but that too is an interesting suggestion. Both of these suggestions—freighters and luxury cruises—take us far from the mainstream, unsurprisingly. And I wouldn't go so far as to express disdain for children. My disdain, if it can be called that, is for the adults that allow their children to run wild in all sorts of venues, and often rise to high dudgeon if anyone has the temerity to object. I get enough of that where I live; I don't need more of it, still less a concentration of it, when I am on vacation. Of course, there's a place for cruises that are meant for children and families—but I don't belong on those cruises. Yes, I did consider that longer cruises would tend to have few children because they would be prohibitively expensive. I also considered the time of year: school will still be in session, so children will probably be few. And the destinations themselves are not the sorts that would appeal to children in general.

Good suggestion about the Galápagos. Thanks. Again, that's the sort of destination that is visited for itself; it will never become a tourist trap.

Although I don't intend to offend anyone, probably some people will take this message as a personal affront. The comments below are about me, not about others; I don't cast aspersions on anyone else's tastes, nor do I suggest that everyone should be like me. Please bear that in mind if you read the rest of this message. I don't like cruises. I've taken only one, to Alaska, in my many years on this blue marble. I'm about to take a 33-night cruise to Iceland and Norway, and unfortunately I have already seen reasons to fear that it may not be to my liking. Why I don't like cruises: They usually give pride of place to gambling, shopping, overeating, heavy drinking, and lying around by a swimming pool, none of which is of interest to me. I do enjoy good food and wine, but I neither need nor want heaps of food or freely flowing alcohol, and anyway I'd much sooner enjoy the food of the locality than something made for foreign tastes. Gambling strikes me as downright foolish (every bet favours the house, often by a shocking percentage), and lounging around by a pool would bore me, as would shopping as an end in itself. They often cater to children («families» being the polite term). I don't wish to be around a bunch of screaming children under any circumstances, least of all when travelling on vacation. Single people like me are not really wanted, mainly because we tend not to spend much money (which is the main reason for the dreaded «single supplement»). There seems to be little reason to use a cruise when travelling independently. Landings in ports are so short that one can obtain only a superficial impression of the locality. Again, this may suit the shoppers and the sunbathers, but it is antithetical to my usual purposes. For me, it makes sense mainly for destinations whose appeal stems largely from their natural beauty; others would usually deserve at least a day or two, often much more time. As far as I can tell, cruises seldom have much to offer to people like me who are of an intellectual disposition. Many of the offerings are lowbrow or worse: television, bingo, hairy-chest competitions. Reportedly some ships have even removed their libraries because of low demand. Presumably a few of the passengers might be kindred spirits, but they are hard to find among the drunks and the gamblers. I am not very outgoing anyway, so I am unlikely to interact much with strangers on a ship. And although I am perfectly capable of entertaining myself, I can do so just as easily—nay, more easily—without taking a cruise. Being commercial in nature, they promote expenditures, often on things that I wouldn't want under any circumstances. I'm not interested in buying touristy tchotchkes, visiting beauty parlours, or shopping for jewellery. Itineraries are often shallow or unappealing. I am not interested in places in the Caribbean that, at least to someone arriving by sea for a visit of only a few hours, offer little but a beach and some souvenir stands. Still less would I value a «private island»—nothing but an uninhabited beach, really. They limit travel to places that are at or near a port that the ship can and will use. Obviously they are useless for most inland destinations, but even many places right on the water are bypassed, either because they cannot accommodate a large vessel or because they don't appeal to people on cruises. With few exceptions, they are Anglo or at least Western in outlook. For me, getting away from Anglos is one of the best parts of travelling. I prefer to travel on my own, speaking the local language and seeking a reasonably authentic experience. That doesn't happen on a cruise, except for a few hours here and there in a port. Like so many other things, cruises seem to be going down-market. Witness not only the sorts of vulgar activities described above but also the tendency away from formality. My 7-night cruise to Alaska years ago included two formal evenings, on which I wore black tie; this upcoming 33-night cruise includes only five such nights, and «formal» means that a shirt with buttons is kindly requested. Even then there are endless complaints from people who deem it an imposition to be expected to comb their hair and change out of their rags, or even take off their baseball caps or cover their bodies, for the sake of others' enjoyment of dinner. A lot of passengers seem not to know or care much about the places that they are visiting; they are content to have their time on the ship punctuated by a few hours in this or that nondescript port, where they can be hauled around on a bus to see whatever may be quickly seen. Recently I was shouted down for objecting to the questionable cancellation of what was for me the most important destination on the cruise, and although a few other people shared my annoyance, many attacked me personally and told me just to be satisfied that I could take a cruise at all. Perhaps to them it doesn't matter; perhaps they cannot even find Iceland or Norway (or Europe) on a map. But to me it makes all the difference, and I'm not satisfied with the substitution of an arbitrary port or the chance to spend another day in a beauty parlour or a casino. Again, those are just my views; I don't expect anyone else to share them. What might attract me to a cruise is the opportunity to visit destinations that are otherwise difficult or expensive to reach. Alaska, Iceland, and the coast of Norway are good examples. Others that I have considered: Antarctica (on one of those tiny vessels that allow landing, not a big ship that merely passes within view of the continent without stopping) Parts of the Arctic, such as Greenland and northern Canada The South Pacific Certain parts of Africa and the Indian Ocean Even these, however, are not always easy to arrange. Most cruises in the Pacific feature Australia, New Zealand, Hawai‘i, and maybe French Polynesia; few go, say, to Vanuatu or Tonga, and even some of the destinations that seem facially out of the ordinary turn out to be private islands. Cruises in Africa often feature only South Africa at one end and the Suez Canal or the Canary Islands at the other, with little or nothing in between except perhaps a few islands (Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles, Cabo Verde). Another problem is that many of these cruises are too short to justify the expense and trouble of travelling far from my home in Canada. Usually I'd want to spend at least two or three weeks on a cruise of this nature. Antarctica seems like an especially promising choice for me: beyond being blessedly free of souvenir stands and tour buses, it will attract people who appreciate the destination and are prepared to pay a lot for the chance to see it. The same is probably true of remote parts of the Arctic. Perhaps it is not true of the South Pacific, which some people may favour for its beaches alone. Any recommendations of unconventional cruises that might appeal to me? Or should I give up and travel, as usual, by other means?

No, I gave that information. It was requested, and I gave it. Still the travel agents' prices always came out much higher than the published figures on Princess's Web site. And a few of those travel agents had the gall to charge for their "service" on top of that. When I pointed out that they were charging far more than the company itself and suggested that there might be an error, they denied that outright.