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?

If all the idiots love it, does that mean that this is a book for idiots?

Is this book any good for those who are not into hardcore punk?

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?

Could this talented artist have done a bit more with the material he had?

Can we really read about warfare as if it was just an adventure?

Is it possible to write a whole a book like a Roxette song, and should anyone read it?

Why is this book only for those who are really into environmentalism?

Is this a book for people who care about mining?

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

Who would have thought it was possible to cross the Bering Strait on foot?

Should this book be read like a homecoming story or rather like a trip abroad?

Could nature have a greater friend than this 19th century guy?

Did this book redefine travel writing, or is it essentially just a boring stream of consciousness?

Is this book trivial and fun, or is it just plain boring?

Could we have expected more from a book that advertises itself as being gonzo?

Was this guy an evil proto-colonialist, or was he a sort of likeable dreamer?

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