Well written, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I expected. Interesting travel memoirs, and interesting overview of Herodotus, but they didn't really contribute much to each other. The whole is less than the sum of the parts.

This is not, as the back of book blurbs suggest, some of the best travel writing around. At times, Kapuściński does merge his travels in Africa and Herodotus' beautifully; but typically it feels clumsy. How he managed to survive his initial trips to India and China being so unprepared is just astonishing. As a fellow traveler who is also familiar with Herodotus' times, I was expecting rather a bit more.

Graduating from a Polish university in 1995 as a journalist, Ryszard Kapuscinski unwittingly embarks on a great adventure when his editor he'd like to see "the border" (of Poland and Czechoslovakia). Instead he is sent to India, where is is fully overwhelmed by the cultural differences. From India, Kapuscinski, travels to China at the high of Mao's One Hundred Flowers campaign, and is given a precious glimpse of life behind the Iron Curtain the few other Westerners were granted.

Feeling lost and intimidated by Asia, Kapuscinski asks to be assigned to Africa in the 1960s. It is a time of great change and upheaval as colonial powers are being ousted and "Negritude" is coming to the forefront. It is a time of redefinition, not only for the people of Africa, but for the people of Europe, who are no longer the center of the cultural map. Amidst all his travels, Kapuscinski's companion is Herodotus's The Histories, which he reads and uses as a lens through which to digest all he sees and experiences. Kapuscinski identifies Herodotus as the first globalist and reporter, as Herodotus details his travels around the known world, documenting human history. Kapuscinski's relationship to Herodotus is one of an admiring student and peripatetic peer.

I adored this book as Kapuscinski is one of the most believable narrators I have met in a long time. Coming close to ingenuousness, his childlike wonder of the world around him belies a sharp wit, intellect and a deep understanding and respect of humanity in all its forms. This is a book I will return to again and again and it the first to make it from library-book to immediate purchase to own. I am excited about reading it again, at a slower pace, not hindered by return-by dates, when I can travel with Kapuscinski and Herodotus through time and nations.

No sé si considerar este texto una amalgama de reflexiones sobre los diversos viajes de Kapuscinski a lo largo de su vida como reportero, unidos por la línea temática que abre con la lectura de las Historias de Heródoto desde su juventud a una etapa más madura de su vida; o si merecería la pena pensar la historia como un todo. En mi opinión, empieza de la mejor manera posible, pero a lo largo de las andanzas de Kapuscinski por Asia y África se va perdiendo poco a poco: se me han hecho innecesariamente largos los pasajes recreando cuestiones relativas a la escritura de Heródoto, más que nada porque una se queda con las ganas de saber más de aquellos sitios que el autor ha visitado y que, desde luego, no podrían encontrarse más lejos de nuestra realidad cultural.

Y sin embargo, acaba tan bien y enarbolándolo todo con tanta precisión que es imposible reprocharle ni una sola palabra al autor. Es aquí donde una se da cuenta de qué va el libro realmente: es una reflexión de más de trescientas páginas sobre aquello que le llevó a querer «cruzar la frontera» de la misma forma que Heródoto, sobre la Historia y todo aquello que marca la diferencia social, cultural y étnica en nuestro mundo. Los textos de Kapuscinski son siempre de primera calidad en lo que respecta al retrato de otras culturas, pero mentiría si digo que este no me ha emocionado particularmente. Lo trata todo con una sensibilidad inaudita en un autor blanco, centroeuropeo y que ejercía en la década de los cincuenta como periodista en países que se encontraban en pleno proceso de descolonización. Ay, Kapuscinsi, qué falta nos harías hoy por hoy.

Sometimes here on Goodreads I'll read a review that combines an actual review of the book and a personal narrative (where the reviewer might tell you a story of how they came upon the book, or some experience they had a while ago that has parallels to the book they are reviewing). The strategy has its advantages, and it usually at least makes for an entertaining read.

Reading Travels with Herodotus was like reading such a book review about [b:The Histories|1362|The Histories|Herodotus|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1158208263s/1362.jpg|488198] by Herodotus. But much longer.

Ryszard Kapuscinski alternates between telling his story as an upstart young journalist and re-telling stories from The Histories. Sometimes he even dedicates entire chapters to summarizing wars and other happenings, often directly quoting Herodotus himself for pages on end. Because I have not read Herodotus, I found these chapters interesting. But if I had read him, these chapters would have little meaning. Why not just read the original? I did feel a little guilty when reading this, as if I were reading the cliff notes version of this classic text.

The parts about his own experiences were also a little disappointing in that they often didn't add up to much. They were entertaining, but didn't seem that significant. I understand that he is trying to show us what he learned about journalism through Herodotus, but most of these lessons are so basic and simple (check your sources, try to go behind the story, remain objective, etc.) that it is anti-climactic. Also, he often makes the same points over and over again.

Even worse, I think a lot of what he praises in Herodotus might just be what he wants to see in Herodotus. It's pretty hard to get a clear picture of how someone reported on events thousands of years ago, so I don't blame him for using his imagination in this respect. However, I don't always buy it.

For instance, he spends many chapters talking about how Herodotus would check his sources, or he would explore the questions himself through travel, or that he wouldn't always believe what his sources said. This is based solely on the fact that Herodotus used phrases such as "This is what I heard…" and "[nobody] I have spoken to claimed to have a definite answer…" and "there is no reliable information to be had about it" (p. 104) etc.

But after stressing this point many times, Kapuscinski goes on to talk about a village that according to Herodotus resorted to strangling almost all their own women in order to win a strategic war. Kapuscinski questions this sentence for two or three pages, asking questions like 'this must've been a huge massacre, where did they store the bodies? what did the women think when they found out the men decided to do this? was there a rebellion? were there men who didn't want to carry out with the plan?' (not verbatim, I couldn't find the exact quote). But then he says that all Herodotus recorded was "And then the women were strangled" or something short like that. All those details fall to the side. Why didn't Herodotus tell us more? Why weren't these questions asked in the original Histories? What does it say about Herodotus that he just skipped over these points? Kapuscinski remains silent on this point.

Another example:

"[Herodotus] calculates that this army--infantry, cavalry, and naval crews--numbered some five million men. He exaggerates, of course." (p. 198)

So here we have Herodotus obviously exaggerating, and Kapuscinski is just mentioning it offhand instead of saying "OK let's re-examine what I said earlier about Herodotus's flawless methods of journalism". No, he just mentions it as if it's totally OK, a minor quibble. Of course, I don't blame Herodotus: he was one of our first recorders of history, so kudos to him for at least trying. But I found it kind of disingenuous for Kapuscinski to hold Hero(dotus) up as this gold standard, and then ignore everything that doesn't fit into his theory.

Overall, this book was an entertaining and easy read, and it exposed me to Herodotus whom I've never read before, so that's definitely a plus. Even taking into account the book's many flaws, it's still generally well written, and I'm willing to venture out and read another one of his books.