Unconventional cruises

[shorne]

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?

 

 

[Cruzaholic41]

One of my all time favorite cruises was to the Galapagos on Celebrity Flora. Everything about the experience was excellent. I highly recommend it for an unconventional cruise. 

[shorne]

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.

[mrgabriel]

I think you have made a lot of assumptions about cruises and those who enjoy cruising.

 

We don't gamble (I might spend a bit of time at a slot machine on a sea day), we don't eat too much, drink too much, or lie around by the pool. Nor are we doing the conga at midnight. When we can, and when it feels comfortable, we venture away from tourist places at ports. We are not all the people in the Carnival commercials from the 2000s!

 

There are plenty of people who cruise for exactly what you're looking for however, the excursion-type cruises are expensive and not everyone can budget for a cruise in the 5 digits.

 

My sister and her husband have taken several riverboat cruises and they especially enjoy those because they are treated to local food and drink, and spend time away from tourist areas. That might be more to your liking. 

 

 

[thinfool]

Like you, this may offend your sensitivities, please forgive or overlook any candor expressed.

Your words belie little research into locations for which you indicate a preference.  Vanuatu and Tonga are both featured on several sailings out of Australia.  I cannot vouch for their suitability.

Your disdain for children, while a personal matter, also contains comments that are not consistent with the cruise you have booked.  Any trip of more than about 7 days will have fewer children for the simple fact that families are not able to find time or money to enjoy more.  Our 14 day, full transit, Panama Canal trip had fewer than 5 childrent onboard (Island Princess).  Hardly a game changer.  Our South America trip (14 day) had even fewer (HAL Zaandam).

I am not a die hard cruiser.but I do believe in being informed, and correctly so.  If you want something I consider truly different you might look into a cruise...which is really a sailing, on a freighter.  Usually less that 10 passengers, good food, no or little TV, no other entertainment, several days in port while the ship loads/unloads for the next leg of the journey.

Edited April 2, 2023 by thinfool

[Flatbush Flyer]

9 minutes ago, shorne said:

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?

 

 

Sadly, your lack of a breadth of experience across the cruise industry spectrum has left you with a one shot skewed vision that doesn’t see the big picture.

 

i must admit that I had to chuckle about your example of ports seldom seen on a cruise - specifically Vanuatu. We just finished an approx six week cruise that included Vanuatu (and both Samoas plus Fiji). And we did it on a small ship serving about 650 passengers (sans children) who enjoyed a comprehensive itinerary and heavenly accommodations with what is arguably the “finest cuisine at sea.” The lecturers included a marine scientist, a media producer and a cultural historian. And the passenger demographic tended toward accomplished professionals who are very well traveled and who understand value.

Icing on the cake? No phony art shows, belligerent drunks, nickel-diming, thundering herds of humanity wandering through a floating amusement park. Music fan? Let’s not forget the string quartet.

 

In essence, it was the type of cruise you appear to be seeking. (BTW, this same cruise line has taken us to Rapa Nui, Robinson Crusoe Island, The Falkland and Faroe Islands and provided unique excursions (e.g., a guided flyover of Peru’s Nazca Lines and all sorts of culinary tours.

 

Might I suggest that your find a well-respected TA who specializes in premium/luxury cruise lines? You may end up very surprised at how wonderful can be the right cruise.

[shorne]

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.

[Cruzaholic41]

54 minutes ago, shorne said:

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.

I’ll expand that to say any expeditionary cruise might fit your bill. 
 

If you’re looking to book a smaller premium line, my first recommendation is Viking Ocean. VO is also doing expeditionary cruises. 
 

Have you considered a river cruise?

 

One word of caution. Do not let anyone here try to tell you that negative passenger behavior, such as those who overindulge, doesn’t exist on premium and luxury lines. Anytime you combine a thousand people, there will always be sour apples in the mix. Always!  
 

 

[shorne]

14 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

I’ll expand that to say any expeditionary cruise might fit your bill. 
 

If you’re looking to book a smaller premium line, my first recommendation is Viking Ocean. VO is also doing expeditionary cruises. 
 

Have you considered a river cruise?

 

One word of caution. Do not let anyone here try to tell you that negative passenger behavior, such as those who overindulge, doesn’t exist on premium and luxury lines. Anytime you combine a thousand people, there will always be sour apples in the mix. Always!  
 

 

 

«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.

 

[Aquahound]

2 hours ago, shorne said:

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.

 

 

No offense taken at all.  I'm a mainstream cruiser and I can certainly admit that the things you mentioned do exist.  I too find a lot of those personality traits boorish and annoying. However, I love the energy and entertainment that exists on the larger mainstream lines, which is why I continue to book them.  DW and I like to let our hair down on vacation so the big ships provide a great outlet for us.  Unlike some, we're able to have fun without trying to drink the bar dry or eating everything in the buffet.  

 

Cruz mentioned Viking Ocean.  Close friends of mine are regulars on that line so if and when my wife finally lets me spend the $$, that is most likely the line I'll look to first.  They also frequently recommend Windstar to us. 

 

Good luck on your search!  

[shorne]

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.

 

[Flatbush Flyer]

19 minutes ago, shorne said:

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.

 

Whatever you do- don’t make the mistake of comparing only the cabin fare. Some premium/luxury lines are mostly (or all) inclusive even to the point of including air tix.

Do the math that gets you to the actual bottom line. You may be pleasantly surprised.

[LHT28]

Maybe look at  Viking Polaris or Octantis

The have less than 400 pax  have unusual itineraries

no under 18's allowed

 Unfortunately most line  charge   more for  solo cruisers

I think a couple of the Luxury Lines have a low SS rate  but then you  are basically  run of the mill itineraries

[jollyjones]

 

As a solo, you should look closely at Silversea.

 

https://www.silversea.com

 

https://www.silversea.com/best-luxury-cruise-deals/single-occupancy-supplements.html

 

They have a good number of itineraries at 25% solo supplement, and even for the regular itineraries I seldom pay more than a 50% solo supplement.

Given that you do not need to spend anything else at all once on board (unless you wish to) since it really does supply everything you need without an extra fee, you might be surprised to find out how good value SS is. 

I travel solo and share many of the dislikes you outlined above, but find the demographics and ship size at Silversea suits me. They also treat solos very well and never make me feel that as a solo I am of less value to them.

The line is more formal than most, which you may prefer, and has the best loyalty award programme of any of the luxury lines.

 

I have looked carefully at Viking and dismissed it - 100% solo supplement and small cabins, no thanks.

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by jollyjones

[DarrenM]

I thought the original post was really good, and very interesting.

 

Alas, I doubt he would enjoy cruising with me, as I despise fancy dress up nights. I mean really despise them.

 

And yet being british, I dont wear baseball caps, or do many of the other things this poster dislikes.

 

Nor do I party at midnight, nor sit by the pool all day.

 

Still, great post though, enjoyed reading it.

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, DarrenM said:

I thought the original post was really good, and very interesting.

 

Alas, I doubt he would enjoy cruising with me, as I despise fancy dress up nights. I mean really despise them.

 

And yet being british, I dont wear baseball caps, or do many of the other things this poster dislikes.

 

Nor do I party at midnight, nor sit by the pool all day.

 

Still, great post though, enjoyed reading it.

 

I wear basecall caps and other hats primarily as protection from sun, rain, cold, etc.  

 

I think baseball caps are now a common fashion "accessory" here in America. It doesn't really bother me (better than bell bottoms- Lol).   Are you seeing or starting to see more of them in your neck of the woods?  

[edinburgher]

Have you looked at Hurtigruten for Norway?.

 

They have expedition ships which go to more unusual destinations such as Antarctica, but have several which run up and down the Norwegian Coast serving local communities and these are primarily ferries which take passengers.  And the onboard experience is typically Norwegian, including meals.

Edited April 3, 2023 by edinburgher

[Heidi13]

14 hours ago, shorne said:

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.

 

 

Viking will certainly meet many of the criteria you are looking for, since they have zero kids (minimum age is 18) and no casino onboard. Since they sell many of the cruises out a year, or more in advance, they have no incentive to offer deals on single occupancy. Single occupancy deals are generally only available on repositioning Trans-Atlantics, which may not sail at capacity.

 

Although the base fare on Viking is more expensive, you need to compare what each cruise line offers. When I compared the true overall price of our 2015 World Cruise on Princess to the 2020 World Cruise on Viking, the daily cost was virtually identical, but Viking's base price was almost double.

 

The other factor with Viking that we find impressive, is they treat pax as responsible adults. They have no restrictions on what can be brought aboard and do not charge corkage fees. You can bring aboard nice bottles of wine from a visit ashore and they will open them and serve them to you in the restaurants. In addition to excellent lecturers, they have an extensive onboard library, which operates on the honour system. No having to wait for the library to open and sign out a book, as they are all available 24/7.

 

Many of the islands you mentioned in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans are not well frequented by cruise lines, but you can find cruises that visit them. Personally, I have been to most of the South Pacific islands multiple times, having completed 4-months of Australian cruising and 2 World Cruises. However, I have yet to visit most of the Atlantic/Indian Ocean islands, as I never worked those areas. Viking did have one of their World Cruises in 2019 visit some of them.

 

I concur with finding a travel agent with experience in the luxury, premium and expedition markets. For the South Pacific you can check out Paul Gaugin, who operate in the region year round. You can also check out world cruises and segments.

[Ferry_Watcher]

18 hours ago, shorne said:

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.

 

My friend, you have booked a 33 day cruise on a Princess ship - you did this under your own free will.  For someone as apparently well read as yourself, you must have researched your options, and still decided that this cruise appealed to you (itinerary? price?).

 

I am not sure what the purpose is of your posting.  Is it 'I found this great cruise deal, but the ship has a casino, dancing, second rate entertainment, no library, and 98% of the passengers are not my intellectual equal, but somehow I have to make do?'   Kinda' hard to be sympathetic .

 

You seem to be a smart individual.  There are lots of travel options out there for you.  You may want to tweak your attitude and outlook on this upcoming cruise, as well as open yourself to meeting other people different from yourself.  You might enjoy it and learn something about yourself in the process.

 

Since you will be on the ship for 33 days, let me recommend a fun, throw-a-way book for you to read.  It was actually on Bill Gates' reading list some years back.  The Rosie Project by Grame Simsion..

 

Good luck!

Edited April 3, 2023 by Ferry_Watcher

[YourWorldWithBill]

We were on a Viking cruise around Iceland that met many of your conditions. No sales pitch, no gambling, no children, full day in each port. Also lectures on board about the destination. So, as others have already said, Viking falls in line with much of what you said. A little research pays off.

[sleepingcat]

good interesting thread has been started here, thanks.  I think as suggested above, you might find if you are willing to fly to Europe to start a cruise you will find more ships and lines which will suit you. Smaller ships can as you point out get in to more, and more interesting, ports. I well remember arriving at St Lucia I think it was, the Queen Mary II was at anchor off the island, not even in the harbour, and tendering its passengers ashore. our modest little ship, the Black Watch, sadly now decommissioned, sailed right in to the dock where we all piled off (actually only 650 passengers as I recall) and made our own adventures for the day.  out of the UK and Germany there are several ships and lines which do not take children, and cruises with lots of activities. 

[9tee2Sea]

22 hours ago, shorne said:

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?

 

 

I don't think you would have to worry about children on your cruise.  33 days, I doubt you will find any.  Look into cruise lines that have "Single cabins".  They have their own special lounge, and dining room.  Since you are going to Iceland, hopefully you will be able to see the Northern Lights ( maybe take a special overnight tour is available).  Try not to poo-poo meeting other travelers.  You can be at a table in the buffet ( or where ever you choose to eat) and start a conversation with someone.  My most recent cruise was Dubai-Athens.  The overnight shore excursions were spectacular.  Not to assume anything, but just try going to an LGBTQ  mixer.  MANY single people ( straight, gay, whatever) that just want to have people to talk to.  See if you can get into a bridge table.  There are lots of things to do, and ways to meet fellow travelers, but the MOST IMPORTANT..you have to be open to everything.  If people see you are stand offish and hate to say it, feeling above everyone, then you will be guarded to have a bad cruise.

 

Loosen up, you will never see these people again.  So just adapt a different frame of mind

 

[shorne]

17 hours ago, jollyjones said:

 

As a solo, you should look closely at Silversea.

 

 

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.

[shorne]

16 hours ago, DarrenM said:

I thought the original post was really good, and very interesting.

 

Alas, I doubt he would enjoy cruising with me, as I despise fancy dress up nights. I mean really despise them.

 

And yet being british, I dont wear baseball caps, or do many of the other things this poster dislikes.

 

Nor do I party at midnight, nor sit by the pool all day.

 

Still, great post though, enjoyed reading it.

 

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.

 

[shorne]

9 hours ago, edinburgher said:

Have you looked at Hurtigruten for Norway?.

 

They have expedition ships which go to more unusual destinations such as Antarctica, but have several which run up and down the Norwegian Coast serving local communities and these are primarily ferries which take passengers.  And the onboard experience is typically Norwegian, including meals.

 

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.