The Diversionary Majority; real life or fiction?

Escapism= Diversionary

In the midst of describing the diversionary tourist category, Erik Cohen poses an interesting question: “Which one of these two modes [recreational or diversionary] is the prevalent one?” He also notes that this question cannot be answered without contemplating how deeply modern man is alienated. In the majority of the books we have read the protagonists are tourists in the diversionary mode, but can we generalize that to mean that most tourists travel in the diversionary mode?

Even the title character in Daisy Miller, who in a way falls into the recreational category, is at her very core, diversionary. Referring back to the article, Cohen presents this idea that tourists can be classified based on their adherence to a ‘centre’, which is a type of spiritual core. The centre, as he defines it, is where a person finds meaningfulness in their human experience. Though Daisy’s centre appears to align with the typical values of an American girl, her experience (especially her tragic death) show that her centre was more of a façade than a real entity. At the end it is clear that she really did love Winterborne and wished that she had not been so stubborn to her centre, showing that her centre was really unstable in the first place. One fault in Cohen’s classification system though, is that he states that the diversionary travelers will experience pleasure, and that the traveling experience will make the travelers everyday life more endurable. However, this is almost never true in the novels that we read. Though they may arrive looking for a diversion, an escape from reality, their findings often threaten their happiness and well-being. Even though in the introduction section of his essay Cohen states that tourism has to be temporary in order for it to work and so that they can return to their everyday lives, it seems that in most of the travel fictions the main characters are almost never able to return to their normal lives, even after only a short time (such as Aschenbach in Death in Venice).

More obvious diversionary tourists are featured in On The Road and Death In Venice. Dean is the perfect example of the centre-less tourist, traveling from place to place, not searching for meaning but simply distracting himself from reality. His experience is a perpetual version of the diversionary tourist mode, and he becomes addicted to the relief (escape) that new places afford him. In Death In Venice, Aschenbach also travels as a means to escape the tedious daily routine that seems to be both taking a toll on his health and speeding up the aging process. He slips so deeply into this escapism that he cannot return to his normal life, there is nothing for him but to die alone in Venice, which he does. Many more of the novels we have read portray the diversionary travel mode such as The Sheltering Sky, The Sun Also Rises, and The Comfort of Strangers. It is interesting, and causes speculation that the majority of the aforementioned books end in death yet Cohen suggests in his article that this type of trip makes alienation more endurable.

The protagonists in Daisy Miller, On The Road, Death in Venice, and The Comfort Of Strangers all qualify as somewhat centre-less, diversionary tourists, yet none of their journeys really divert their attention from the mostly unpleasant realities of their own lives. Why are there so many diversionary tourists in the novels we have been reading? And how can we use that information to address the question or which type of travel is more prevalent? Perhaps part of the reason so many of these protagonists are alienated is a reflection that many of these writers were alienated themselves, a typical plight of artists and intellectuals. As we talked about earlier this semester, it is inevitable that a writers own feelings, emotions, and concerns appear in their writing. So while the plethora of examples of alienated, diversionary tourists in the literature that we have read seems to imply that this type of travel is prevalent, there may be a sufficient bias because of the writers common characteristics. Therefore contrary to intuition, great writers may not provide the best social commentary.