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.