Armchair Adventures

We don’t really read books or stories like Hammond’s anymore. His long and detailed descriptions of one person’s travels and exploits through a region, without much humor or a suspenseful storyline, separates the book from contemporary popular travel writing. Since Hammond's time, the action or adventure story describing journeys or expeditions to far away and/or dangerous places have become extremely popular. Much of the time, the story and setting involves some sort of intense risk factor. Touching the Void (here is the trailer!) is a famous one, as are Between A Rock And A Hard Place (the guy that cut his arm off) and Endurance: Shackleton’s Incredible Voyage.   

We talked a little bit about how the popularity of these stories might be a way for people to experience dangerous situations from the safety of their own couch, much as a horror movie gives a risk-free adrenaline rush. However, I do wonder why almost all of these stories have some kind of wilderness component. If the value for the reader is simply the thrill, there are many other settings that could achieve the same effect. Conversely, if all we want is to read about being in wilderness, then why is Hammond's style no longer popular? There is something about the combination of the "wild" and the "dangerous" that is appealing to a lot of readers (including myself). An adventure is somehow less adventurous if it is accessible, which is why I think so many people enjoy reading about the exploits of those people doing the most extreme activities--and often times paying the price for it.