Devil in the White City Blog #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?

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.” I think, in a way, the Chicago World Fair was an exhibition of arrogance. All the cities had great pride that their city was the best choice when first attempting to decide which city should host the next World Fair. So yes, I think everyone needed to be a little arrogant to actually believe that they had the ability to produce the World Fair that they all had dreamed about and make it become reality. I think the builders who designed and dreamt about all the things they eventually accomplished had to ignore some things to be able to dream such an extravagant outcome and make it reality. The architects had to believe that they could successfully complete in the World Fair in the short amount of time given and also they had to be strong and believe that they could create a World Fair that would be way greater than that of France. This World Fair in Chicago was supposed to be designed bigger and better than anything in existence on the planet, no matter of cost or physical limitations. They also had so much pride that they believed they could find millions of dollars to spend on the construction of the Chicago World Fair. Not only that, but they also believed that they could drawn in so many visitors, that the fair would make a profit. This is all based on their pride. The fair was for sure a display of American arrogance during the 19^th century.I believe that you must accept the good, and deal with the bad in all areas of life. This is directly established on the pages 196-197. By pointing out the destruction of the fair because of arrogance and to show that dark always parallels to good, Larson's novel parallels these features perfectly. Larson's entire novel is written in the perspective of each of the two main characters lives embodying the question of whether or not the fair contradicts with darkness. This directly contrasts the White City and the Dark City. There creative acts did engender a darker, destructive parallel mainly because of the reason that they were rushing everything. When rushing construction that is just asking for bad things to go wrong. But they had to rush everything if they were going to see the World Fair completed on time and successfully. This shows even more arrogance.

Blog due last Wednesday ****ABSENT****

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?

The Devil in The White City describes how wherever there is good, there is evil. The Chicago World Fair was being built out of good reasons, mainly to show the world the greatness and power of America. However, while the World Fair was being built, a serial killer had other plans on how to use it to his own advantage. As Larson begins his story of the two men in Chicago, he uses the intro to tell the reader that this novel will contain the good of men (Burnham), and the evil that will both show in Chicago (Holmes). In The Devil in the White City, Burnham is the creator of a magnificent, seemingly impossible feat- the creation of an entire town of epic size and architectural genius. The most important difference between these two men is that Burnham chooses to create beauty, while Holmes chooses to destroy it. Through the concept of light and darkness, Larson shows Chicago as how the city will be perceived by the rest of the world. With Burnham, the symbol of goodness, Larson turns Chicago into the White City, filled with structures that are attempting to gain worldwide glory for America at the World Fair that year. But Larson then ruins Chicago’s image by introducing the devil, Holmes, to the White City. Both have a continuous battle for the prize of Chicago and its legacy, and each man attempts to achieve their goals because they have their eyes on the prize and have to be the best at what they do. They both become well-known by pursuing their passion and by living their lives in the ways they wanted too. Both men, Burnham and Holmes, are blue eyed and passionate. Each of their respective passions is beheld in very different ways to each man; the passions are murder and architecture. Holmes believes in murder as perfection while Burnham believes in perfection through building. Every chance Burnham gets he is working, thinking, visualizing the fair.

These two men are the perfect examples of “the ineluctable conflict between good and evil.” Burnham was an honest man working for an honest and good cause. He came to the White City with the desire to live the life of the American dream. He fulfilled his goals and was chosen to be the leader of designing the Columbus Exposition. He was in charge of the important project to not only make his city, but also his country a symbol of honor, achievement, and pride.  Through this task that was bestowed upon him, he engaged the impossible and succeeded; the pressure that his world bore down on him turned him into the hero of the White City, Chicago. Where Burnham sought nobility, Holmes sought sorrow. While Holmes had the tools he needed to become anything or anyone because he had unmatched charm and humor that stood second to no one.  Astonishingly, he had no enemies whatsoever, because even they were subject to the influence of Holmes’ charm. Henry Holmes decided that the only challenge to him was the challenge of a human’s humanity.  Murder was the only true stimulant that this man had, killing was his only stimulation. Holmes is the antithesis of our hero Burnham. 

Extra Credit Blog

Extra Credit Blog: Satire

Compose a blog analyzing modern societal uses of satire, and their effects.  Blog should be 1,000 words in length.  Blogs for extra credit are due Friday, March 18, by 8 AM.

            Irony is the essence of satire and every satirist today uses it, because every satirist is writing about the lack of wholeness in their subject. Satire used to be only a literary genre, but present day, it has been transformed from over the years to be commonly found in the graphic and performing arts as well.  In satire, shortcomings and follies are held to ridicule with the main intent to embarrass certain individuals or society itself, hopefully ending up with an improvement. Satire is usually meant to poke fun and get people's attention, but its greater purpose is to provide helpful social criticism using witty ways to prove a big point.  In our society, satire is used on billboards, commercials, T.V shows, and movies.  Satire is just a way for people to get their views on different things out without offending anyone and to bring a light-hearted feeling to it. By grabbing multiple readers' attention through this satirical humor, a lot that would normally be looked over, can be communicated to get important tasks done. Today, satire reaches its audiences through many different types of media, which are ranging from comic strips in the newspapers, to TV programs, stand-up comedy acts, online videos, books, songs, skits and other various shows.

            Fake news is also a very popular form of contemporary satire; a trend led in print by The Onion and carried on by the Humor Times, and online in numerous internet sites like The Giant Napkin. In particular, satirical television shows have become very popular and have a huge following. Thousands of people have said they stay up late now and began changing their habits so that they can watch David Letterman, The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live and The Colbert Report.  On shows like these, the hosts pick on certain issues going on all over the world and make them humorous to get viewers interested and informed on what's going on around them. Stephen Colbert’s television program, The Colbert Report, is enlightening in the methods of modern satire in America. Colbert's character is an opinionated and self-righteous commentator, who, in his TV interviews, interrupts people, points his finger at them, and unwittingly uses a number of logical fallacies. In doing so, he demonstrates the principle of modern American political satire: the ridicule of the actions of politicians and other public figures by taking all their statements and beliefs to their furthest logical conclusion, which ends up revealing their perceived hypocrisy.

            Satire is also used on the radio. It is shown through radio shows and music that is played all over the radio. In result, this ends up targeting a younger audience because radios are played a lot on commutes in the car and also as a way to keep up with listening to modern music.  Like TV shows, this is a way a lot of information is passed along, and it is effective because of its ability to draw audiences in so well. For instance, radio shows like "Wake Up Call" from 107.9 The End, do exactly this every morning, each and every day. Thousands of listeners from throughout the Sacramento area wake up and listen to this show because of the humor and quirky ways of the hosts.  It helps get them up and moving, ready for the day in a positive way because of all the humor. The radio show uses satire of celebrities and plays fun games including the popular, War of the Roses, to draw viewers in to listen to their show. These funny and satirical aspects disguise the messages about important issues locally and also around the world that they want to put across to listeners and make this station the station to listen to.  Most means of entertainment use this method of satire to gain popularity today.

            In what is known to be the most famous model of satire in English, Jonathon Smith’s A Modest Proposal, is the epitome of irony and satire. This satirical author, among many others, have shaped what the meaning of satirical writing is today. He guided modern writers to make moving, meaningful satirical pieces of their own. Even though satire in modern times is a bit different due to new technology and innovations, the same underlying points are there masked by humor to prove points to people and to make necessary changes.
            Satire is most commonly used to point out and poke fun at politicians, political issues, war, or any other major points a creator is trying to make. The sarcasm and humor found in satire is used in lyrics of movies, songs, TV shows, and any other types of entertainment in order to convey major points across to as many viewers (or listeners) as possible.  Satire is extremely effective because it lies in our entertainment, which is a major part of the American lifestyle today. Satire is a common way seen more and more often to target everyone with hopes of getting everybody's attention to make changes and improvements on big things or even just small every day issues.a  melancholy  Irony is the essence of satire and every satirist today uses it, because every satirist is writing about the lack of wholeness in his subject -- its lack of moral or human healthiness. Take what is probably the most famous example of satire in English, Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal written in 1729. It is the epitome of irony.

Irony is the essence of satire and every satirist today uses it, because every satirist is writing about the lack of wholeness in his subject -- its lack of moral or human healthiness. Take what is probably the most famous example of satire in English, Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal written in 1729. It is the epitome of irony.

 More information and persuasion can be put forth to readers in an interesting way, making the communication of issues more effective.

Blog #3

In today's society, an idea such as eating a child would surprise any sane human being. Jonathan Swift's essay, A Modest Proposal, provides an outstanding case for the perfectly logical and beneficial idea of eating our children of the world today.  He explains the perks of the idea. For example, he says that it will protect the tradition of marriage, make a great sense of fashion, decrease the number of beggars and homeless people on the streets, prevent abortions, and leave more money for the rest of society. Even though eating a child is straight up cannibal-like, the way Swift explains his reasons makes it sound completely reasonable and normal. He says that he heard that "a young healthy child well nursed, at a year old, [is] a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled." From this comment, we assume that a child would taste good. He goes on to say that "a child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone... [it] will be very good on the fourth day."  Here, he is saying that a baby is capable of providing many hearty meals which would greatly help the famine problem for many families in the difficult time of the country. The baby would/could also serve as an entertainment dish during dinner parties. It seems like the baby might be seen as a delicacy to eat because they take a year to mature and nine months in the womb of its mother.  

 nursing them to plumpness. Also, he said marriages and life in the home would be dramatically improved for the men would no longer have any want to beat their wives while pregnant for damaging the little bundle of cash inside of them. Swift tends to use negative connotation when referring to the people of Ireland.  He uses satire to dehumanize the Irish, and compares them to cattle, calling the women “breeders” and the children “saleable commodities”. 

However; Swift not only points out the perks of feeding the starving and hungry country, he take his proposal to new heights when he mentions the babies' skin being used to "make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen." Now the children would be considered fashionable as well as a good meal. His proposal will benefit those woman, or "breeders," also in which they will each be paid eight shillings per annum for selling their children to be eaten and will also be reimbursed for the money they spent on the first year of

           Throughout this essay, Swift leaves some important things out. He never mentioned how the Irish people would react to his proposal.  I do not think that everyone would agree with his viewpoint, in fact, most people probably would not agree with him. Since he would have to go through the Irish government in order to make it legal, how come nothing was said about that?  Another thing he did not mention was how the decision of which babies would be killed or which would be spared was made.  It is obvious that every single baby born could not be killed because the Irish would become extinct after the adults died. So I would like to know, which babies would be privileged enough to stay alive?  Would it be the poor or the minorities? I can see many problems with that decision if indeed it does happen. Although Swift had many good components to his “Modest Proposal”, he lacked several key parts of his persuasion. 

               I think that Jonathon Swift is looking for one solution to solve many problems in this essay.  If the men in Ireland are beating their wives uncontrollably, maybe the Irish Government should increase the punishment for domestic violence rather than jumping to the conclusion that eating children will solve all of their problems.  I think that Swift assumes that his proposal is solely selfless and he has no personal gain from it. Instead, he proposes this for the public good of his country. His proposal is to help advance their trade, provide for infants, relieve the poor and give some pleasure to the rich. Even though his intentions seem to be good, it is very highly unlikely that anyone in their right mind would ever go through with this plan.  I personally think that it is ruthless and absolutely repulsive. However, I do think it’s very good of him to be thinking of ways to help rebuild the Irish economy, but a more rational proposal would have been a better solution I think. More people would probably think about a realistic proposal to solve their issue.

                       

Word Count: 778

BLOG #2

Ernest Hemingway describes a hero as someone who has “grace under pressure” and also as someone who isn’t afraid of a challenge. I think this is the ideal thought of a hero: being brave, unafraid of challenges, and being able to handle pressure. 

Romero displays the qualities of those of Hemingway’s ideas of a hero in The Sun Also Rises.  Romero takes on the bulls head-on, and actually fights them as an occupation. The other bullfighters of the time put on a show for the crowd, and make the fight more dramatic than it really is.  Romero puts on a real show for the crowd by taking away the fakeness, because they actually like better.  The fake bull fights are just made to try to attract the attention of the crowd, and lure them into believing these men were heroes of that time period.  Romero poses as the “real” hero of the time period by putting up real bull fights, and to not try to fake his job of fighting bulls for show. 
Even with the peers, Romero shows qualities of a hero. He shows this by being chased by women and looked up to by men.  He is seen as a living immortal in the eyes of others, and they look up to him for being fearless, and taking the bull head –on.  Romero is very confident and even walks with a swagger no matter who he is around.  He shows true heroism in the ring, putting up a real fight instead of faking the drama of the fight just for attention.
The ideas of a “hero” have changed from that time period to present.  Back then, a hero was a figure everyone looked up to and tried to imitate, in order to be great.  These heroes once faced a great challenge, took it head on, and ended up doing wonders with the task at hand and put out great outcomes.  They had great poise when surrounded by pressure, and dealt with the factors they had to in order to do great things.  However; our thoughts of a hero nowadays have changed drastically. Now, anyone can be a hero regardless of past actions or background. Nowadays, people can perform one action, and be looked at as a hero by many.
The description of a hero varies immensely. The ideals of a hero have somewhat disappeared, since it is so easy to be looked at as a hero nowadays. Most likely, a person like Romero wouldn’t be considered a hero today; instead he’d just be another bull fighter doing his job. People these days are all about the show and could probably care less whether Romero was actually fighting the bull or just putting on a show. These days, a person has to accomplish a feat of saving someone, or a feat of great success in order to be considered anything near a hero.  People these days have fewer expectations of heroes then they did back then.  Now, heroes are so common, the story of them are overrated, unlike those stories of the old Greek heroes who accomplished feats no others will come close to.  People now have “heroes” all over TV, so now the thoughts of heroes changed from immortals to sport stars.
Hemingway’s ideas of a hero are the original ideas of a hero, and those ideas of a hero should be carried on from generation to generation.  Heroes should be rare and be looked at by everyone, not just thought about for a week then passed by as another citizen.  Heroes never die, their story lives on forever in the generations. Heroes aren’t forgotten. Romero is the type of hero that people wish still existed today because he is so pure. Even though we lack this type of hero in the bullfighting scene, there are heroes like him in our everyday world. They don't have the cool costumes, capes, or gadgets but they still fight for what the love and believe in all of the time.  People like the firefighters, policemen, teachers and volunteers all work to save lives from misery and suffering but don’t get the credit they deserve.

Words: 693

Blog #1

When I was working on my blog, the cord got unplugged and I lost all my work... I will rewrite it after school and add the rest of my 450 words. Hope that is ok.

In Turgenev’s essay, he uses a strong tone, vivid purpose, and an inside point of view to validate his argument concerning capital punishment. He describes the construction of the guillotine, the narrator’s thoughts during the final minute of the execution, his tortured, and his guilty thoughts that he is witnessing another murder because he wants to supply people who are opposed to capital punishment and public executions with evidence in great detail.

He uses many persuasive words to make the reader think about their view on capital punishment. I didn't find very many weaknesses in his writing... It sure got me to think about my own view on capital punishment. After reading his essay, I understand where he is coming from. The whole mentality of killing the people who killed others makes more murderers in our world. It does seem brutal, but with our present economy, I kind of think that capital punishment wouldn't be so bad for the people sentenced to life imprisonment. It would save space, food, and money to have them gone. It probably sounds inhumane but it could be logical in some senses. 

Blog #15

Ehrlich describes cowboys a bit differently than the stereotypical view us Americans tend to have. Instead of describing them how the typical Marlboro advertisement does, she describes them as sympathetic and admirable, determined and courageous, selfless and tender. They are the tough guys who go out and save animals when they are in trouble, after they go and nurture the newborn calves or lambs. Cowboys are also polite to women but in reality, they just don’t know how to channel their emotions after being out in the fields with all men or animals all day, everyday. She seems to have a lot of respect for these men and also admiration.

The tone of her essay is full of admiration. Throughout the whole essay, she explains many different admirable situations cowboys go through each and every day. From their gentle, care-giving side to their strong and rugged side, Ehrlich has a wonderful example of each. She points out their positive qualities and also the negative...but each negative has a positive and logical reason for it which ends up making it an admirable quality.

I think her tone throughout this essay really helped prover her point. I'm sure many people are second-guessing their impression of cowboys after reading this essay. She got her point across very strongly and told America what a real cowboy was.