I suppose this is a good time to clarify something from one of my past posts. The concept I gave of Rome being ‘real’ in comparison to the north of Italy goes a bit deeper than the varying levels of interest in image (e.g. Florence works much harder and has greater success than Rome staying clean and free of graffiti). I meant that the residents of Rome left a much greater footprint on the city. Facilities in Florence were much more geared towards tourists than in Rome—right down to reliably speaking English. In Florence the street was absolutely lined with crummy cafes and gelatarias catering to tourists. However in Rome there are many facilities offered that only benefit residents: the supermarkets, inglorious metro and numerous beggars that are the marks of a living city. Chances are when you see someone on the street in Rome (besides near the Vatican or Coliseum) they are in fact Roman.
Besides recognizing that Rome is still largely dependant on tourism, that’s what I meant when I said Rome was more real. Now I can speak with another perspective shift: if Rome is living than Naples is a swarming beehive. It’s evident just in the constant roar of the street: of cars accelerating unnecessarily until they hit the brakes 20 meters before they need to stop, of blaring horns that really should be sent to NYC, of construction machinery and of people shouting conversations above the rest of the din. Oh, right there’s a significant difference—there was more street construction in the few blocks between our Neapolitan hostel and the Historical Center than everywhere I’ve been in Rome. That’s a clear indication of extensive use and wear, unlike in Rome where once in a while a few square meters of cobble need to be replaced.
Another good indication is how small the visitor-friendly area is in Naples compared to Rome. In Rome, the kiosks with disgustingly overpriced, thin panini and bottled water meant to gouge any gullible tourist are visible pretty much everywhere within the city walls. Umbrella salesmen are just as abundant. In Naples there are only a few streets of stores that cater to the classic Neapolitan figurines that tourists would seek out. Instead, even within the Historical Center there are markets that sell unprepared food requiring a real kitchen to cook (meaning tourist won’t be stopping there much). The chances of meeting an English speaker in Naples, even in the touristy area, are also significantly smaller than in Rome.
So, with all that said, coming back to Rome was like walking out of a rock concert early. Even Termini seemed quiet in comparison to the walk to the train station in Naples. Likewise the people of Naples were, at least at first glance, so outgoing and friendly that Rome seemed particularly isolating. I always assumed the lack of contact in Rome was due largely to the fact that it was a gritty city—that like in New York people lived in their own little ruts and don’t have the guts to break through the social barriers. But now, seeing an even rougher city so filled with people who go out of their way to acknowledge you, the lack of social stimulation when walking down the street is kind of boring. Also I could draw infinite comparisons between Naples and Hawaii: both backwards, fairly corrupt places that are beautiful until you delve too deep, with friendly people who may or may not be dangerous. I’ve been missing that atmosphere.
So, in short, Rome feels much more empty now. It’s not the true example of a living city in Italy. It’s the result of an annoying half-effort to make a living city tourist-friendly.
No comments:
Post a Comment