“Standing there on the embankment, staring into the current, I realized that—in spite of all the risks involved—a thing in motion will always be better than a thing at rest; that change will always be a nobler thing than permanence; that that which is static will degenerate and decay, turn to ash, while that which is in motion is able to last for all eternity.”

Inspired by the constant movement of the Oder near her childhood home in Poland, the narrator describes her philosophy on movement and the need to travel. She considers being settled in one location to be akin to decay, as remaining in one place does not afford the individual the stimulation of curiosity and difference. This anticipates the link the narrator will establish between travel and preservation.

“They weren’t real travelers: they left in order to return. And they were relieved when they got back, with a sense of having fulfilled an obligation.”

The narrator expresses her disagreement with her parents’ philosophy of travel, which centered around yearly vacations. The narrator herself prefers constant movement and travel for the sake of travel rather than traveling in order to return with greater appreciation for one’s static home environment.

“And there is that other assumption, which is terribly dangerous—that we are constant, and that our reactions can be predicted.”

The narrator does not pursue a career in psychology, as she disagrees with personality profiling and its implications of static identity. The narrator prefers to believe personality is always in motion, just as her body constantly seeks out the motion of travel. Although her own writing frequently fills in the blanks of others’ personalities, it does so in a way that is episodic and fleeting.