Devil In the White City #2

In describing the collapse of the roof of Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building, Larson writes "In a great blur of snow and silvery glass the building's roof—that marvel of late nineteenth-century hubris, enclosing the greatest volume of unobstructed space in history—collapsed to the floor below" [p. 196–97]. Was the entire Fair, in its extravagant size and cost, an exhibition of arrogance? Do such creative acts automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel?

            The World’s Columbian Exposition was to be grand. The buildings were to be extravagant, and the exhibits were to be exquisite. Everything about it would proudly showcase what America was made of. America’s Fair would in all aspects be greater and grander than the one held previously in France.

            The Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building of the Fair in Chicago was one of the most significant buildings of the entire fair. Post, the architect in charge of drafting this building, intended on having it be the largest and tallest building ever constructed. It would include a central tower, a bridge, and electric elevators. Post would use enough steel to build two Brooklyn Bridges to construct this building. With many people aspiring to make the building one of the greatest, its premature collapse only proved to foreshadow the Grand Fair as an exhibition on arrogance.

            Even in the beginning, when America was first given the opportunity to present the World’s Fair, the people seemed overly eager. The first thoughts of many people, were to out-do the Fair in Paris. Especially those of Chicago and New York, the people felt immense pride to have the fair held in their hometown. Americans somewhat began a small battle over who would hold the Fair. When Chicagoans learned they won, their honor and exuberance secreted a sense of selfishness. They were in no doubt, proud that one of the most prestigious architects of Chicago, Daniel Burnham, was to lead in drafting for the Fair. However, they became so proud, that many were outraged when Burnham went to New York to look for assistance. Overtime, the planning of the Fair, seemed to revolve mostly around how much greater it would be, compared to that of Paris.

            One of the issues Burnham was mostly troubled with, was the desperate pursuit of how to out-do the Eiffel Tower. This was crucial for the Chicago World’s Fair, and whether he found a good competitor or not was symbolic of the Fair’s destiny.  Although the Fair eventually builds a Ferris Wheel, its concept was admirable, but the Fair’s stressful execution of it left a large sense of disappointment and incompletion.

            Although the many people involved in making the Fair come to life were already pushed to meet the deadline for when the Fair was to be finished, no allotment of time ever seemed to be enough. Even the most prestigious architects mentioned that the most extravagant buildings were created from start to finish, within a matter of decades. The deadline was even pushed forward into later dates, and even then the Fair seemed unfinished. When the Grand Expo finally opened much later than originally expected, some buildings and exhibits were still incomplete and lacking.

            Americans now had bragging rights for having held the Fair on its soil, and although some parts of its productions were spectacular, their arrogant attitudes counteracted with these productions. The collapse of the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building not only portrayed the Fair, but also the consequence of selfish actions and attitudes.

           

Devil In the White City #1

In the note "Evils Imminent," Erik Larson writes "Beneath the gore and smoke and loam, this book is about the evanescence of life, and why some men choose to fill their brief allotment of time engaging the impossible, others in the manufacture of sorrow" [xi]. What does the book reveal about "the ineluctable conflict between good and evil"? What is the essential difference between men like Daniel Burnham and Henry H. Holmes? Are they alike in any way?

Behind the doors, something unimaginable is always waiting for discovery. As Erik Larson fills his pages of the projects his characters were involved in, his details of the characters themselves set an overall tone in “the Devil in the White City”. Larson states that good and evil will always cross paths, and that this conflict is inevitable. Although the two may seem like complete opposites, Larson points out the similarities that the ‘good’, being Burnham, and the ‘evil’, being H.H. Holmes, possess.

            In the vaguest way possible, readers may describe Daniel Burnham as an architect, and H.H. Holmes a killer. Although one would never think to compare the two, Larson juxtaposes them to show how oddly they appeared to be the same. However, their essential similarities are only set apart by whether the men took a position of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ morals.

            Both unmistakably brilliant and creative, the ideas of Burnham and Holmes were impossible. Burnham was an extraordinary architect. He, along side his partner, Root, basically revolutionized modern architecture with their discovery of how to successfully build skyscrapers. In building the World’s Fair, he made many of the most important decisions in drafting and constructing. Burnham’s buildings were to be known historically for their spot-on details, as well as overall brilliance. But how could a doctor, nothing of an architect, build something so equally complex? Holmes drafted and designed his own building, with the intention of killing. Although on the outside, it was to blend in like any other building, Holmes created an intricate design of secret passageways and special chutes, including a large sound-proof vault, and even a furnace. And not only did Holmes build these custom pieces; he did so by means of scamming, and got away with it without any question.

            Just looking at both of the men’s achievements, in a broad perspective (overlooking the fact that Holmes murdered many people,) the projects of these men proved to require immense creativity, thought, as well as a good sense of reaction. Both men obviously held these important qualities, as the World’s Fair and the many murders of Holmes were carried out successfully. Both men had sought to do something incredible; something that had never been seen nor done before, although one man only aspired to out-do a past event, as the other man simply enjoyed ending the lives of others. Through their creative ways, one for the good of others, the other cunning and deceitful, has thus brought before the reader, one of the greatest architects of America, and the greatest killer (possibly of all time).

            The symbolism Larson presents through Burnham and the good, versus Holmes and the evil, draws attention back to how to tell the comparisons apart. Obviously Burnham simply gets grouped into the “good” because his creativity was to be used for the benefit of the many people that would get to experience the Fair. Whereas Holmes is categorized into the “evil” as his creativity was to be implied in his own greedy schemes, not to mention the fact that his intentions were to kill, which provided no benefit whatsoever to anyone.

            With regards to the statement that the paths of the good and the evil inevitably cross, readers may agree that without one, there is no other. Without the villain, there is no hero. Without Burnham and his creation of the extravagant fair, Holmes may not have been successful in carrying out his dirty operations. That is to say that readers may interpret Larson’s choice for a title, “Evil’s Imminent” to be a foreshadowing of the dangers that could inevitably be set forth, whether certain events occurred or not.

           

Blog #2: A Modest Proposal

            When people face difficult times of poverty and neediness, they often grow poor and hungry. But have no fear, for there is a simple solution—eating children.

            Dr. Jonathan Swift approves of this idea, in A Modest Proposal, which he wrote in 1729. In Swift’s proposal, he appeals to his audience by emphasizing how beneficial cannibalism would be to Irish society.

            In Swift’s intro, he states that the proposal is, “for preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.” He then goes on to start his argument by summarizing how burdensome children are to their caretakers. Beggars are helpless in raising three to four, or even six children, which can cause great ‘grievance’. Although he starts his proposal with the negatives of having children, Swift states that his proposal will help “many thousands” of his country.

            With a great play on words, Swift’s “modesty” for the brutal and harsh ideas of feasting on human children, prove to be quite ironic. He says that eating children will solve the problem of the kids being a burden to their parents, as well as decreasing abortion rates, and obviously, helping to feed the people of Ireland. The author justifies these claims with anecdotes, as well as research.

            Swift persuades readers by assuring the people of Ireland, that “whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.” Not only is it odd to propose the idea of eating children in the first place, but I find it especially odd that Swift is given the idea by other people that have eaten children. Although I do know that he is joking (hopefully) in this essay, it seems odd as to how the author comes up with these ideas, and how he supports them.

            Another thing I find pretty interesting about this piece, is how Swift uses a formal tone to describe his “research”. He states everything matter-of-factly, and seems to know about eating children from previous experience or thought. Swift proposes that one-year olds will weigh precisely twenty-eight pounds, and even states how the whole system of eating children would play into society. His tone remains professional, and reading it makes me imagine an advertising agent’s presentation for proposing a plan with a company, using graphs and charts to point out their assessments. Swift’s tone seems progressive, as he states that “infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March…” He even backs this statement up by explaining that more Roman Catholic children are born nine months after Lent.

            Swift’s proposal even includes certain guidelines for eating children. He recommends buying the children alive, and roasting them like pigs. He says that for the wealthy people, the highest quality child must be over twelve years of age, but under fourteen. The best tasting children must be plump and fat, and are discouraged to exercise. Don’t worry, however, as there are yet even more benefits that eating children could provide.

            In his proposal, Swift notes that by eating children, the poorer class will have something to valuable, as they work hard to turn their children into something fit for feasting, thus providing them with money to pay rent. He also notes that the nation’s stock will increase drastically and therefore boost the economy. Breeders will profit from the eight shillings sterling per year, and eating children would even improve marriage. Swift states that “it would encrease the care and tenderness of mothers towards their children…” This idea is quite ironic, since the mother would be more caring to her child, because she wants to make profit off of it and essentially, eat her own baby.

            After reading and analyzing A Modest Proposal, I only found one thing Dr. Jonathan Swift did not address—if people were to eat children, what would happen to the future? Surely, if children were a highly demanded product on the market, there would be no more children left to grow up and live through the future. And what if children became in such high demand, that adults decided to eat older children? The norm for the age of which a child should be eaten would eventually grow older and older, and could result in people eating their friends and neighbors of similar age! This would eventually lead to the end of life as we know it, right?

            I know I must sound like a cannibalistic lunatic in this response to A Modest Proposal, but I do find Swift’s proposal quite enjoyable, in both his writing style and creativity. His use of satire to persuade his readers is genius, as it is exaggerative, but not overbearing to the point that it isn’t believable. Overall, I found Swift’s proposal interesting, although one can only hope that he wasn’t serious…

Semester 2: Blog #1: Sun Also Rises

            In all of his novels, Ernest Hemingway tells the story of conflict and settlement. Readers have coined his triumphant characters in these stories as “Hemingway Heroes”, or the characters that exhibit heroic qualities. In Hemingway’s novel, Old Man and the Sea, Santiago, the old fisherman, held the heroic title, as did Robert Wilson in the Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber. In the Sun Also Rises, Hemingway puts great emphasis on Pedro Romero, a “real” bullfighter.
            Pedro Romero is described by Jake, as a “beautiful” and attractive nineteen year-old boy. Romero is the “real-deal”, as he is a talented yet young bullfighter. Romero shows a great passion in his bullfighting, and is not afraid of death. During the fiesta, Jake explains to Brett that the other bullfighters, Belmonte and Marcial, fake their fights, stunting their fears with bold moves that would make the audience perceive them as macho. Romero, on the other hand, makes bold moves as well, although he does not flinch. When Jake and Romero have their drink together, Romero says that the bulls are his best friends. He also says that he kills his best friends, “so they don’t kill me.”
            Romero displays heroic qualities through the ways Hemingway describes the people watching him. During the bullfights, the audience is captivated by the little details in his work. Enthusiasts, or “Aficionados” can easily appreciate his body language, as well as the way he looks at the bulls. Jake explains in great detail, what seem to be special connections between the bulls and Romero. The chemistry that Romero and the bulls have, is obvious to the audience, and is another great quality that makes him a hero.
            During the bullfights, hee is always displayed in the center, between Marcial and Belmonte. Towards the end of the novel, it is explained that Belmonte was a retired bullfighter, but he came back by popular demand. Belmonte came back to perform at the fiesta, although Romero had now taken an even higher status than Belmonte had. Even Belmonte knew that Romero was the better bullfighter, and that his honesty showed in his work.
             Another quality of a Hemingway Hero, is modesty. When Jake and Pedro Romero have a drink together, Romero does not brag about his status. He is aware of his talent and accepts people’s praise, and he even occasionally admits that parts of his bullfights were good. Romero is also not afraid to openly discuss his faults, as he did with Jake.
            Romero shows great pride in his work, even though he once admitted that he doesn’t necessarily enjoy bullfighting.
            Pedro Romero can be classified as a Hemingway Hero, as an extremely passionate and talented young boy. He is an epitome of purity and youth. He is the true meaning of the word “macho”-- and many of his supporters (including Montoya, as well as Jake and Romero’s posse) try to keep him that way, by helping him avoid things that would corrupt him. Up until his relationship with Brett, he remains a pure and un-corrupt boy.
            When Brett runs off with Romero to Madrid, Robert Cohn eventually catches up with them and beats up Romero. During the fight, Cohn physically damages him terribly, but Romero still builds up enough energy to hit Cohn back as hard as possible. After the fight, Brett takes care of Romero, as he is badly wounded and tired. After what seems to be a few days, Romero still comes back out to the arena, despite his bruises and physical standing, and continues on of the last bullfights—of which he dedicates to Brett.
            In the Sun Also Rises,  Ernest Hemingway casts Pedro Romero as the great Hemingway Hero. Romero is liked by many, is young, passionate, talented and pure. He gets the girl that all the men wish they had, and is the only one that changes Brett’s demeaning ways. He has technique and isn’t afraid of death. He is the only character in the novel that has a clear direction of where he is going, as everyone else seems lost in their own personal conflicts. He is charming and friendly, and overall, a well-rounded person. And hey, he wears a cape. What defines a hero better than one who wears a cape?