So this october National Geographic Traveler voted the fjords of Western Norway to the top of their rating of the World Heritage Destinations. They said many pretty things, like this:
To float into the Geirangerfjord is an astonishingly complete natural experience-steep, lush and rocky canyon walls, endless waterfalls, a snow-capped backdrop and inconceivably deep, emerald green water
and this:
The West Fjords have sensational scenery, are well-preserved and are clean. The people there are willing and helpful. There are great outdoor activities, and good hotel options and restaurants, but they close rather early! In May-June there's no feeling of mass tourism, visitors can just take ferries like normal Norwegians going about their business.
and so
forth. Now, I live in the western part of Norway, so a part of me is a little proud - but another part of me is puzzled. I think this latter part is the one that goes - "The fjords? What is so great about the fjords? Only hillbillies (or would that be fjord-billies?) live in the fjords. The mountainsides are always collapsing and hopefully not crushing a car. The ferries are a right pain...and I will stop now before I sound too grouchy. ;D
But are the fjords all that? And please bear in mind that they beat places like Cordoba,Alhambra, Vezelay and so forth. (the complete list is
here.)
The Geiranger fjord.