A question came up in a recent conversation with a friend regarding travel to a familiar destination. She and her husband lived in Italy for three years and loved it there. For the past two years, they have been living in the United States again. Next year is their tenth anniversary, and they want to plan a special trip.
Should they go back to Italy for two weeks?
My first response was NO. Because, selfishly, that is not what I would do. I have a huge travel list, or what OneGiantStep calls a “not-a-bucket-list”. There are so many places I have not seen, that there are very few places I would return to (I will save the list of places I would return to for another post).
But then I took a step back to look at it from her point of view. They LIVED there, they loved it there. Is that different?
Sometimes I think people go back to the same place because they want it to be like they remembered, to relive an amazing journey or vacation. But what if it is not the same type of experience? Would it be better to leave a terrific memory just that, a memory? Or is the risk worth the benefit of going to a place filled with the possibilities of the same warmth and amazement as before?
So the question I put out to you the readers is a spin on one of my favorite Thai quotes “Same same, but different”. Would you or do you prefer to go back to the same place again, or do you prefer to go somewhere different?