comment #1

ArchiveGuy says ...

"Anyone who says they prefer coming to Las Vegas and taking in fake atmosphere crap like this instead of experiencing the real thing in Venice, Italy, or Paris, France, has a serious problem".

Has anyone actually said this? People may like Vegas because they find there's more for them to do, or that it's cheaper than flying to Europe, or no language or cultural barrier, or any number of other things.

But do you actually know anyone who's admitted to preferring faux atmosphere over the real deal on the comparative merits themselves?

comment #2

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Q: "Do you actually know anyone who's admitted to preferring faux atmosphere over the real deal on the comparative merits themselves?"

A: Yes, I do. I know a woman from Texas who loves Vegas for the comfort factor and gets all xenophobic when it comes to going to Paris or wherever. Having been in this plastic hell-hole for the last four or five days, I find it truly loathsome that anyone would embrace that kind of aesthetic criteria. This is one of the worst places in the world in a spiritual sense. It's rancid in the worst ways imaginable. It's a mecca for easily impressed middle-class fatbodies who love the illusory fantasy of being surrounded by cheap pseudo-splendor.

comment #3

Anonymous says ...

If it keeps some of these people away from the real sites, which are crowded enough, then I'll consider it a public service. It's like the always packed Bennigans across from the Art Institute here in Chicago – at least it keeps the stupidest tourists from clogging the good restaurants.

comment #4

JoeM says ...

I don't know, I love Vegas. It's just a big playground for adults, no more no less. Great shows, great restaurants (my favorite aspect, as I'm not a gambler), and nice bars. I agree, it definitely ain't Paris, and I'd certainly take a Paris trip over a Vegas trip if someone was offering a choice of a free vacation to either of those places. But once I sucked up the history and spirituality of Paris, I'm sure I'd still have a soft spot for the history-less, somewhat plastic glories of Vegas. It's like I told my friends when they asked me how Vegas was: "It's glitzy and overdone, but it's the best glitzy and overdone I've ever seen." But I like Disney World, too, so maybe I'm not the best person to chime in here.

comment #5

Matt says ...

"...rancid in the worst ways imaginable...a mecca for easily impressed middle-class fatbodies who love the illusory fantasy of being surrounded by cheap pseudo-splendor."

Oh, man, is that a fantastic sentence. I only moved here a couple of months ago, and I've been waiting for Jeff to put my thoughts into words.

The thing about Vegas is that it's meant to be a 2-3 day destination, at best. If you have never been to Europe (or Manhattan, or, um, Rome), I guess you could be taken in by the Venetian, or Caesar's, or the "Eiffel Tower", but having seen the real thing in person, it just seems...sad. The clincher is the fake sky they put in, and that they have the audacity to call the place where you can buy a blueberry muffin and a mocha grande a "boulangerie". Disgusting.

At least you can rest easy knowing that you'll be outta here in a few days. It's a little easier to be philosophical about being in a soulless town when you've got a light at the end of the tunnel. Me, I'm stuck here for at least a year.

Also, ArchiveGuy, I don't want to burst your bubble, but there is no way in hell that there is "more to do" in Vegas than in Paris. There are exactly 3 things to do in Vegas, and when you're done Gambling, Eating/Drinking, and Clubbing, you realize that you're ready to go somewhere with some art, culture, intelligent discourse, or, God forbid, a fucking PARK!!

comment #6

ArchiveGuy says ...

:rolleyes: I never said there was more to do--for me at least. But for some people, they will find more entertainment value in Vegas than in a foreign country (and you forgot shows--from musicals to comedy--and day trips to Hoover, the Grand Canyon, etc., both of which some prefer to museums or historic sites) I cannot relate to this (since Vegas gets really boring really fast for me), but for some people, it's true.

But it's a mistake to conflate "not exceeding one's comfort zone" with "xenophobia" ("undue contempt of that which is foreign"). Some people make decisions by which they're going to miss out on (supposedly) wonderful things in life. Food may be one, Travel may be another. And sometimes this is simply borne out of fear.

For people not used to traveling in a foreign country, it can be a truly daunting experience. I had to handhold my Mom through England & France at first, not because she thought hermetic suburban life was superior, but because for some people, Venice or Paris seems incredibly exotic, to the point of appearing inaccessible. Not everyone is imbued with a natural sense of adventure, or a fearless willingness to confront the unknown or unfamiliar. Did you jump into the deep end before you knew how to swim? Did you take to the busy streets before you knew how to ride a bike? Acclimation to things unfamiliar can take time and doesn't universally suit everybody.

My point is that, for Jeff to allege that some people prefer one over the other is to presume that they've experienced both Paris and Paris/Vegas, and prefer the latter. I suspect that's not the case (and that's what provoked my original question).

For some, travel is a risk--costing time and money--and they'd rather spend their money on something they know they'll like over something they're not sure about. I see, on average, two movies theatrically a week. My wife, probably once a month. So when I see a bad movie, I shake it off because there'll be good ones 'round the corner. But when see sees one, it's rough, because it was time and money she valued and the spending of it is more infrequent.

Everyone has their own priorities of what interests them, what sparks their imagination, and what they're naturally curious about. Some are more expansive in this regard than others. Some people I simply don't "get" because of how narrow their field of interest may be, but I'd like to think I don't communicate the same type of smug contempt that was what bugged me about the OP.

comment #7

Andrew says ...

Only mouth-breathers go to Vegas for any other reason than whores and gambling,

comment #8

Dixon Steele says ...

Andrew,

The proprietor of this blog is there for a reason other than whores and gambling, you close-minded schmuck!

comment #9

FourthWallImages says ...

"This is one of the worst places in the world in a spiritual sense. It's rancid in the worst ways imaginable. It's a mecca for easily impressed middle-class fatbodies who love the illusory fantasy of being surrounded by cheap pseudo-splendor"

You could translate that as "an accessible Nevada equivelant to a typical Hollywood backlot". So big whoop. No it should not be substitued for the real thing if you can experiance such a venue. I've driven to Vegas from San Diego a handful of times now, and the place really does lose it's shimmer after a few visits, a dilemma I can't see having with the real canals of venice...and don't even get me started on nyny.

comment #10

Addison says ...

I'll never forget going to a restaurant in the Venetian that looked over the "canal" and having the hostess ask "would we like indoor, or outdoor seating" with a straight face. I live in Reno which has its own sense of "unreality" about it but at least it's a real town. Maybe next year JW should go to the Reno-Tahoe film festival.

comment #11

NYCBusybody says ...

This proves once and for all that people from Texas are almost as idiotic and banal as people from NYC or Paris.

comment #12

Daniel Zelter says ...

I was only in Vegas for a few days, and it made me cry. It's the only place I hate more than L.A. Though my favorite anecdote about going there is when one of the casino employees was telling me she wished the mob was still running the city.