Travel choices: Ease yourself in, or plunge at the deep end

When choosing your first vagabonding destination what is better, something to ease you in on an extended trip away from home, or something that stuns and shocks you into a new way of thinking?

Both have their advantages. In the predominantly English speaking parts of the world, it is easy for an English, Australian, Canadian or American to swap countries. They all have supermarkets, Italian restaurants, and (relatively) reliable transit and infrastructure. This can be a good way to begin a life away from your home country. Work is easy enough to get hold of, and apartments are two-a-penny in some popular cities. For the most part, the climates are bearable.

This sort of adventure can be comfortable, sociable and still educational. Being an Englishman in North America, a lot of my preconceptions about those inhabitants above and below the American-Canadian border were challenged, and changed. Seeing some of the sights that have littered my television screen all my life was breathtaking and enriching.

It was my first time travelling, and it was something I needed to do, as a prerequisite for camping, danger and wildlife on my next planned trip, in Africa. I couldn’t have jumped straight to the latter. For some people, the outdoors is a doddle. Living without shops, or roads, or with water in short supply is their bread and butter. But for me, I needed to know I could get on a bus and travel for three days, and everything would still be okay. In my case, when you come from a country that is seven or eight hours car ride from top to bottom, it can be quite a shock to the system.

The less developed nations can offer very different experiences. For the most part, gone are the monuments and the familiar international scenes. But in their place are the feral times, living on the edge, and finding people that are a world away from your own life. Can each be as rewarding as the other? What makes a real traveller?