norway

(not norway)

the name itself conjures up images of pristine glacial waters and breath-taking fjords. much ink has been spilt on the rugged beauty of norway and yeah, it was beautiful. it was also incredibly expensive and i find it amusing that at some stores, the price is listed in NOK and SEK and the number is the same. rather logically, that means that the very same object of lust would be 25% more expensive once you cross the border. which begs the question, why would anyone shop in norway given a choice?

and don't get me started on the F&B prices.

which makes me extremely pleased with my foresight (haha) and determination to visit norway with the parentals. there's no way my piddly student budget would extend to enjoying norway the way it's to be enjoyed. so thank god for comfy digs, excellently fresh seafood and the ability to train/bus/boat everywhere with impunity. oh, and cab rides when my little legs got tired. am unabashedly spoilt that way and it was truly a godsend to have my parents around.

i can't do justice to the beauty of the fjords so i'm not going to attempt articulating my overwhelming sense of awe at seeing them for the first time. but press me a little and i'll grudgingly admit that i preferred iceland. they're similar in that there's a waterfall every 100m or so, crystalline waters and glaciers but nothing tops my sheer exhilaration at seeing blondberg (IN THE PHOTO - for my facebook friends, more photos in the album 'europe on a shoestring part 1') emerge from a bend in the highway. also, iceland seemed more unspoilt by commercialism. so i'll put myself out there as an ingrate and maintain that iceland's still the ultimate for me. but the norwegian fjords come a close second. milford sound? don't bother.