Does it make sense to refer to this author as the godfather of travel writing?

Why is it often better for a writer to not put things into perspective?

Do nice photos, a lot of visited countries, and slick design make for a good travel book?

Why is this humorous travel book such a classic?

Why is this so choppy?

How can a book about a man running around the whole world be so boring?

If this book isn't badly written, then why is it still bad?

Is it a good thing or a bad thing when a writer starts to write about writing?

Did he have to try this hard to show that he's a fanboy?

Is this a great piece of poetic travel writing, or has it been overly polished?

Why does esotericism so often go hand in hand with ignorance?

Is this just an epic journey through China, or does this writer also have mad skills?

Is this another author who distances himself from his story?

What were German readers looking for in a travel book after World War II?

Was this a 14th-century fact finding mission or just another medieval mystery tale?

Is this book more about contemplation or more about adventure?

Why is it so much fun to read Medieval travel stories that are at least partly untrue?

Are these travel memoirs worth reading, or has censorship ruined them?

Is China really that quirky, or do we sometimes just want things to be a certain way?

Did conservative ethics turn this great adventure story into such a slow read?

Is this guy our average Joe from the Middle Ages?

If Fleming is the more gifted writer, then why is this book better than his?

Would a little less irony have made this book even better?

If this is one of the classics of Portuguese literature, why is it such a slow read?

Do we really care whose fault it was, or can we just accept that mountains are deadly sometimes?

Why is this one still so good today, even though a lot of it is untrue?