an observation on romanticizing the ship

I have sometimes wondered why some people are wild about ships that seem
overpriced and in many cases old to me.

Reading reviews on some of these, like the QE2, the QM2 (delete the term
"old" for this one), the old Rotterdam (V, I think), and the Norway
(that one I've sailed and loved, but prices were incredibly low), I see
a pattern of rich poetic language used to talk about these ships, almost
a mythology.

I don't share this kind of sentimentality about ships; for me, the
romance is with the sea rather than the ship. But I'd be interested in
a discussion about this, if anyone else finds it worth talking about.

Eileen

Subject: an observation on romanticizing the ship

Interesting, Ei.

Yes, I can see some ships.....QE2, Rotterdam V, the Big U, QE, QM... and some
of the long gone to the breakers tonnage. One of a kind; interesting
histories; decor; construction.. and the sense of new "exploration" for the
passengers.

I don't see any ship having been built since perhaps the late 70's with the
same ability to evoke these emotions. Not when people are more traveled, thus
losing the sense of "exploration".....most ships are certainly not one of a
kind anymore.. and as for their histories...well.. the "modern" builds
certainly don't have an interesting history......

And then there is the staff and crew. How many current Hotel Managers
(formerly known as the Chief or Executive Purser)
have been written up in The NY Times.. such as John Lock, the former CP of the
Big U? How many hostesses such as Maureen from Cunard.. have decades of
service with the same company.

It just isn't like it used to be. Guess that's why some of us belong to the
Yahoo Group, "Liner's List". There's just so much
missing now that ocean voyages have morphed into "cruising". Steamship tickets
have morphed into online docs and you have crew rotating from ship to ship..
from one line to another.... not spending their entire careers with one line..
or one ship.

And you know me... I'd much rather be on a ship than anywhere else...but there
is still something missing. I've often referred to it as the "soul" of the
ship. And no, I don't think the QM2 will ultimately qualify in the long run.

Babette

In article , OcnGypZ
wrote:

And you know me... I'd much rather be on a ship than anywhere else...but there
is still something missing. I've often referred to it as the "soul" of the
ship. And no, I don't think the QM2 will ultimately qualify in the long run.

I can understand someone coming back from a QM2 sailing and it turned
them on, like it did Ernie Roller. I don't understand the rapture for
the QM2 by someone who has not sailed on it.

--
Charles

The cow and I don't want "romance," we want to swing, dudes&dudettes! haha
"Charles" wrote in message
d...
In article , OcnGypZ
wrote:

And you know me... I'd much rather be on a ship than anywhere else...but
there
is still something missing. I've often referred to it as the "soul" of
the
ship. And no, I don't think the QM2 will ultimately qualify in the long
run.

I can understand someone coming back from a QM2 sailing and it turned
them on, like it did Ernie Roller. I don't understand the rapture for
the QM2 by someone who has not sailed on it.

--
Charles

CupCaked wrote:

Eileen Garland wrote:


I have sometimes wondered why some people are wild about ships that seem
overpriced and in many cases old to me.

Reading reviews on some of these, like the QE2, the QM2 (delete the term
"old" for this one), the old Rotterdam (V, I think), and the Norway
(that one I've sailed and loved, but prices were incredibly low), I see
a pattern of rich poetic language used to talk about these ships, almost
a mythology.

I don't share this kind of sentimentality about ships; for me, the
romance is with the sea rather than the ship. But I'd be interested in
a discussion about this, if anyone else finds it worth talking about.



I think Babbette hit on it in her response. Traveling by ship evokes
a certain nostalgic link with the past that really isn't present
in other aspects of life. Even if we didn't experience it first hand,
we've all read about it, seen it in movies and the like. Sadly (for
me, anyway) much of that certain excitement, that allure, has been
watered down and white-washed by modern-day cruise lines. I
understand that they had to change or die. The airplane was breathing
down their necks.

True, ships now are not the only mode of transport as they were in the
days of steerage class. Many of us who cruise, even in the cheapest
cabins, are still enjoying far better accommodations than many of our
ancestors did when they crossed the North Atlantic for the first time.
Heck, I posted just yesterday about "inside versus outside" cabins ( a
constant topic of conversation on this newsgroup) and how my husband
will not even consider an inside cabin. He emigrated to America on an
HAL ship in an inside cabin when he was a little boy. An inside cabin
for him would be going backwards, to a time when he was "the Dutch
couple's little boy" when he arrived in Hoboken. It has nothing at
all to do with snob appeal. It has everything to do with his history,
a history with ships included.



Here's my take on it. First of all, ages, eras, can not be compared. We
tend to romanticize times past and filter out the misery of these times.
That, to me, is human nature. Only those unrealistic believe that
anything today is within the same context as it was, even just a few
eras ago. But things aren't measured in neat little, even samples, such
as the 40s, 20s, 80s, etc. Things occur more naturally, and times overlap.

I think, and this is my viewpoint as someone who has been studying and
*living* music since 5 years of age, that sometimes creations, products,
whatever you want to call them are imbued with a certain quality;
sometimes tangible, sometimes intangible, sometimes able to be
explained, sometimes ineffable, that makes for a certain "feel". If that
feeling is shared one knows what is meant by the "feel", but some feel
it, some don't. We don't all feel everything therefore none of us is
deficient for not feeling a something that some may feel. Because we'll
not feel what others feel. As a childless adult, and happy to be so,
I'll never "get" that special love a father has for his son or daughter,
and as men we'll never get that special connection a mother has with her
children, especially after giving birth to them and raising them through
their early years. I feel I wouldn't want either but know I'm missing
something.

A ship doesn't have to represent what it did at one time to have a
certain feel of the ages. It's something within the character of the
ship. Watching American Idol Simon commented that Fantasia had a quality
about her that was not of this time. The QM2 may be an anachronism, but
it is very much this time. This idea of bigger and faster is nothing
new, it has been around for ages. The QM2 is the latest manifestation of
this idea. And that's it, maybe in essence. An idea whose thread goes
through time, taking somewhat different forms, but is some permutation
of an idea. And this definitely is in the form of ships, they are so
layered and represent so much to so many, but different things to
different people, but there's a quality identified.

Charles says he can't get into people getting into a ship that haven't
sailed. There are references, Charles. You sense something, you *feel*
something, sometimes in the way a ship sounds, glides over the water
while watching her, has interiors that certainly carry through the
spirit and style and this continuum through the years, you *know* it has
a certain something you identify with before stepping aboard. No amount
of bad food, crappy service, surly and unruly fellow passengers can kill
what the ship has. Get the unsuited out and put the suited in in terms
of software and the marriage is there. The ship comes through. Some of
us look at the ship, and remember, it isn't just its components, its
manufacture, it can be a product of the souls, imagination, emotions of
its creators. Not all ships are this way, some are. Some are instantly
recognizable as such. Others realize it after being in service for awhile.

Ben S.



Karen


__ /7__/7__/7__
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.cupcaked.com/reviews
(...and leave off the "potatoes" to e-mail)

In article k.net,
Benjamin Smith wrote:

Charles says he can't get into people getting into a ship that haven't
sailed. There are references, Charles. You sense something, you *feel*
something, sometimes in the way a ship sounds, glides over the water
while watching her, has interiors that certainly carry through the
spirit and style and this continuum through the years, you *know* it has
a certain something you identify with before stepping aboard.

Never been a mystic. You can get into a ship you havn't sailed but what
you have is only a dream that may not be reality.

No amount of bad food, crappy service, surly and unruly fellow
passengers can kill what the ship has. Get the unsuited out and put
the suited in in terms of software and the marriage is there. The
ship comes through. Some of us look at the ship, and remember, it
isn't just its components, its manufacture, it can be a product of
the souls, imagination, emotions of its creators. Not all ships are
this way, some are. Some are instantly recognizable as such. Others
realize it after being in service for awhile.

If the the software is bad then it is going to be a failure even if the
hardware is a wonderful creation. You can't seperate the form from the
content. There has to be a unity.

--
Charles

"Charles" wrote in message
d...
In article k.net,
Benjamin Smith wrote:

Charles says he can't get into people getting into a ship that haven't
sailed. There are references, Charles. You sense something, you *feel*
something, sometimes in the way a ship sounds, glides over the water
while watching her, has interiors that certainly carry through the
spirit and style and this continuum through the years, you *know* it has
a certain something you identify with before stepping aboard.

Never been a mystic. You can get into a ship you havn't sailed but what
you have is only a dream that may not be reality.

Sometimes dreams come true. Some times they don't.

Howard could be right. If you REALLY WANT to like a ship, you'll probably
end up liking it.

No amount of bad food, crappy service, surly and unruly fellow
passengers can kill what the ship has. Get the unsuited out and put
the suited in in terms of software and the marriage is there. The
ship comes through. Some of us look at the ship, and remember, it
isn't just its components, its manufacture, it can be a product of
the souls, imagination, emotions of its creators. Not all ships are
this way, some are. Some are instantly recognizable as such. Others
realize it after being in service for awhile.

If the the software is bad then it is going to be a failure even if the
hardware is a wonderful creation. You can't seperate the form from the
content. There has to be a unity.


And to me... if you have great hardware (ship) and terrible software (food,
service, etc.)... that's even worse. That's a waste. While others may get
wrapped up in the ship itself, and not worry about bad food or service, I
think of "what could have been".

At least if it's a lousy ship with lousy food and service... you can just
write the whole thing off and say "well, I won't do that again".

--Tom

Charles wrote:

In article k.net,
Benjamin Smith wrote:


Charles says he can't get into people getting into a ship that haven't
sailed. There are references, Charles. You sense something, you *feel*
something, sometimes in the way a ship sounds, glides over the water
while watching her, has interiors that certainly carry through the
spirit and style and this continuum through the years, you *know* it has
a certain something you identify with before stepping aboard.


Never been a mystic. You can get into a ship you havn't sailed but what
you have is only a dream that may not be reality.


But you have experienced it before in some other form. That's what I'm
saying, you reference something in it that's familiar and desirable.
This isn't dreaming or idealizing, it is something concrete that one
feels. I have a relationship with the ship when I sail. People have
mentioned when driving feeling a relationship with a car, as it being an
extension of themselves. When I'm on a ship I have a relationship with
the ship, and I follow my very accurate instincts I get from pics,
descriptions, and other resources before sailing the ship. You may not
have a relationship with a ship, but some of us do.


No amount of bad food, crappy service, surly and unruly fellow
passengers can kill what the ship has. Get the unsuited out and put
the suited in in terms of software and the marriage is there. The
ship comes through. Some of us look at the ship, and remember, it
isn't just its components, its manufacture, it can be a product of
the souls, imagination, emotions of its creators. Not all ships are
this way, some are. Some are instantly recognizable as such. Others
realize it after being in service for awhile.


If the the software is bad then it is going to be a failure even if the
hardware is a wonderful creation. You can't seperate the form from the
content. There has to be a unity.


Failure in what sense and for how long? Software can be changed much
easier than hardware. Some of us can see great hardware that needs
better software, but the problem is the quality or application of
software to hardware, not the fault of the hardware. Again, if you
aren't into ships this means nothing to you. But if you are, it makes
sense.

Karen's review points out the greatness of the QM2 as a ship, yet she
noticed significant service and cruise-related issues. We are not merely
dealing with form and content--function. I said look past the mechanical
and "product" points. This is the realm of the emotional, creative,
historical, nostalgic embodied in the ship, not just form and content.



Ben S.

Tom & Linda wrote:

"Charles" wrote in message
d...

In article k.net,
Benjamin Smith wrote:


Charles says he can't get into people getting into a ship that haven't
sailed. There are references, Charles. You sense something, you *feel*
something, sometimes in the way a ship sounds, glides over the water
while watching her, has interiors that certainly carry through the
spirit and style and this continuum through the years, you *know* it has
a certain something you identify with before stepping aboard.

Never been a mystic. You can get into a ship you havn't sailed but what
you have is only a dream that may not be reality.


Sometimes dreams come true. Some times they don't.

Howard could be right. If you REALLY WANT to like a ship, you'll probably
end up liking it.


To be honest, I didn't know what to expect from Karen. To me, it seemed
she had a lot of doubts about the QM2. She ended up loving the ship. I
knew I liked the Galaxy before I sailed aboard it. Would I get a good
cruise? I was lucky, I did in Alaska. Do I want to sail on her again?
No. I don't want the level of service and food I got on the Connie on
the Galaxy. But that doesn't change how I feel about the Galaxy and her
spaces and the magic (personal) that can be created in them with the
right mix. We can see a ship for what it can do even if it isn't used by
the line to its potential. There is that separation of the actual ship
to what the cruise line does with it. The Rembrandt is not the Rotterdam
V, used completely differently, yet some people sailed it just to be
aboard the physical Rotterdam V, not a Premiere ship.

I'll say, unequivically, it has nothing to do with wanting to like
something. It is recognizing what you like and knowing it. It may
disappoint you in some way. The ship may not sail well, may have some
vibration and strange odors in it that may turn you off. But you may
still like what's in it and that mechanically it didn't work for you.
That's possible. You may end up disliking it for reasons not apparent to
you when researching it.

I think people have to be allowed to have different feelings about
products. We don't approach them the same way, so are feedback takes
different forms. It isn't right or wrong, it is how does one approach
the product. It is how one pre-approaches the product. I think to call
someone into ships a dreamer is a misrepresentation of who they are.
There's a very sober side to many of us being called dreamers. So it is
ships that we fancy. I'll bet you, the most "it's about the product,
software and hardware" proponents wax poetic about something. Maybe
cars, tools, firearms, wine and other liquor. Something. They'll see a
description of something coming out and know from the details and design
if it at least interests them or not and sometimes even if they'll like
it or not. Not that they dreamed they'd like it.


No amount of bad food, crappy service, surly and unruly fellow
passengers can kill what the ship has. Get the unsuited out and put
the suited in in terms of software and the marriage is there. The
ship comes through. Some of us look at the ship, and remember, it
isn't just its components, its manufacture, it can be a product of
the souls, imagination, emotions of its creators. Not all ships are
this way, some are. Some are instantly recognizable as such. Others
realize it after being in service for awhile.

If the the software is bad then it is going to be a failure even if the
hardware is a wonderful creation. You can't seperate the form from the
content. There has to be a unity.



And to me... if you have great hardware (ship) and terrible software (food,
service, etc.)... that's even worse. That's a waste. While others may get
wrapped up in the ship itself, and not worry about bad food or service, I
think of "what could have been".


That's changeable. What's easier to change, provisions and head chefs
and their training or fixing the physical layout of the ship? I'm not
talking about refurbishing and changing chairs and carpet, I'm talking
about providing intimate spaces, nooks and crannies, expansive and
interesting deck areas, and the like. That's harder and at times
impossible to fix. What's almost impossible to fix is a ship with poor
seakeeping due to the design.

It is a HUGE mistake to think that those wrapped up in the ship don't
care about food or service. We probably care *more* about it. But we
know that it can be fixed and varies sometimes by a large deal from
sailing to sailing, itinerary, length of itinerary, etc. I'm not
cruising Celebrity for awhile not only because I didn't like the
Constellation, but their food and music provided were a half-hearted
effort. So, I think that shows I'm concerned with these things. However,
even if Connie fixes the food, service, music provided, I'll pick
Galaxy, Mercury, Century. Those ships touch me. Connie, Summit, and
Infinity do not. Millennium touches me but has big shortcomings in what
a ship should contain for the way Claudine and I use it.

At least if it's a lousy ship with lousy food and service... you can just
write the whole thing off and say "well, I won't do that again".


I think one can not conclude anything about the line based on that
experience or even limited experiences. I've witnessed brilliant jazz
musicians certain nights and there was no magic. None. Their creativity
and energy was off. Other nights they were breathtaking and
awe-inspiring. Nobody has it all of the time. But they are who they are
and they have it in them, even if on a certain night it doesn't show.
And I think it is difficult to discern if the cruise product is always
shown to the customer in its best form, and if the form that it shows a
customer on a given cruise is a fair representation of what most people get.

Ben S.


--Tom

Eileen Garland wrote:

I have sometimes wondered why some people are wild about ships that seem
overpriced and in many cases old to me.

Reading reviews on some of these, like the QE2, the QM2 (delete the term
"old" for this one), the old Rotterdam (V, I think), and the Norway
(that one I've sailed and loved, but prices were incredibly low), I see
a pattern of rich poetic language used to talk about these ships, almost
a mythology.

I don't share this kind of sentimentality about ships; for me, the
romance is with the sea rather than the ship. But I'd be interested in
a discussion about this, if anyone else finds it worth talking about.

Eileen


The approach to take is what do I connect with on an emotional level?
Name it. Write down what moves you about it. Then think that's how
others feel about other things. In this specific case, ships.

Ben S.