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.