"remote" place. Kate Davies talked about this on her blog "Needled" this week and I have to agree with her.
I do not have an i-pad so I cannot download the offending e-magazine (available on ly on Apple) and read the article for myself but she, rightly, criticises an article in that magazine for referring to Shetland as remote, "sheep infested", windswept and the like. The author of the original article apparently gets his geography wrong too. It would cause me to question not just the article but the entire magazine.
My ancestors came from Caithness. Some of them were sailors. Shetland was just a short hop away for them. There was nothing remote about it. It might take a little more travelling for some people than others but, as Kate points out, it is easier for her to go to Shetland than it is for her to go to the Isle of Man or Guernsey - and nobody calls them "remote".
We lived on an island once. It was isolated but it was not remote. Very few places are remote. To my mind "remote" means not being able to get satellite communication - and most places in the world can get that. You can be isolated but it is not quite the same thing. People can be isolated in big cities. Island communities are often very close-knit. They once had to be in order to survive. That is not a myth but it would be equally wrong to suggest that there are not rivalries and tensions at times. Of course there are.
Kate also complains gently, but again rightly, of people perpetuating such myths about places, people and things. It is a common habit of writers and, as readers, it is confronting if our expectations are not met.
I can remember being asked by young Canadian children if Australian children rode kangaroos to school. They were terribly disappointed to discover they did not. Their romantic view of Australia was disrupted.
It is good to be reminded of myths and good to be reminded that they are myths.