Monday, March 25, 2013

Devil Final: #1

Why do you think Larson chose to tell Burnham and Holmes' stories together?  How did the comparison affect the narrative?  Do you think the stories worked well together or would you have preferred to read about just Holmes or just Burnham?  Explain why.

44 comments:

  1. I do not think that the stories would be as clear without each other. Although the fair was huge in America and everything that Burnham put into it was important I think that if his story was alone it would be boring. All Burnham story was about was how long they procatinated in the of fair and how it was rushed, at times I felt that it was just name after name being thrown out there. The fair is important but I think that because of the nature of the story it would not be able to stand alone. It needed that little bit of Holmes' mystery and creepiness to keep the train moving.
    The world fair was probably one of the biggest things happening in America in the late 1800's. In the American School Districts I do not believe they teach about it. Because of that factor I believe that Holmes story would have made much sense. His talks about being a hotel for the fair and people disappearing was an everyday occurance, making it easier for him to cover stuff up. I think that Burnham's story helps Holmes' by creating background knowledge for the reader. I believe the comparison of these two stories being in the same time period and everyhting that they worked for just worked together. I do think that the stories worked well together and it was a really good way to mesh them. They stand better together then they would have alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with everything you've stated. Their stories would not have been able to stand alone. I know you think the stories mesh well together but do you think that Holmes and Burnham mesh well together, in the sence that they balance each other out?

      Delete
    2. You're totally right, Stephanie... Holmes' story wouldn't exist without Burnham's. Simple as that.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Stephanie, Burnham's plot lead up to the Holmes plot. Holmes built his schemes and plots off of the craziness and planning of the World's fair. Everyone was so worried and concerned with the excitement of the fair that no one was really paying attention to the outside world. Holmes could not have had a story with Burnham's story because the hotel that he built was for the fair. I think one of the main reasons that Holmes didn't get caught for so long was because it was common for people to travel and come and go as the fair was going on so when people were missing, no one really thought much about it. The Holmes plot was built entirely on Burnham's plot.

      Delete
  2. Erik Larson told Burnham andf Holmes' storties together to show how two dominant men in Chicago and how the fair changeed them both. I do think the two stories defientely work together and really make the plot interesting as you are seeing the time period throught mthe lives of two very different people. While I think the two work together I would much rather read a lot more about Holmes as i think his side of the story was more lively and interesting. Burnham's side of the story wasnt bad it just became very dry and boring as Holmes' stroy escalated and become more suspenseful. With this however i do think that a book about Holmes would have been more full of historical facts which made this book very interesting to read.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I belief Larson's choice to tell these stories together was to show both sides of Chicago at the time. There was the rich and prosperous (Burnham) and the dark and terrifying (Holmes) It really helped give the narrative perspective. It let you see that even though something as exciting and positive as the World's Fair can be going on, while something as dark as Holmes can be going on quite literally right down the street. Personally, I preferred reading the Holmes story line. Burnham didn't really attract my attention. It was quite dull, and was basically just "Challenges to the fair, but ended in success." Holmes was less predictable and more exciting overall. And besides, who doesn't love some darkness and good villain?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Austin I agree with basically all that you wrote, save my interest in some of the Burnham plot. Both stories worked hand and hand in the way they created equal contrast to two very different plots happening within the same time and proximity of one another, as you mentioned in your response. However, do you think Larson could have made the Holmes story longer to make it its own book or have made the Burnham story more intriguing to maintain a stronger interest in it for readers like you? Your response was formulated in a nice short manner but able to get your points across, at least to me it seems like that, and I enjoyed reading it for that reason. Your response also made me think of our friendship in AP Lang. We're right next to each other and we differ a lot, like Burnham and Holmes. Just don't turn into a serial killer.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with this response. I agree that the parts about Holmes were a lot more interesting to read, but the architecture stuff was in there also to show that two extreme opposites were going on at the same time in the same place

      Delete
  5. Erik Larson chose to tell both Burnham and Holmes’s stories together to juxtapose them. Both are stories of ambitious, talented men that elevate themselves to positions of power. While Burnham uses his skills to create by designing the world’s fair, Holmes uses his abilities to destroy by killing innocent women and children. In juxtaposing these two stories, I believe that the author was making a point about the balance of good and evil, especially in America during this time period. In terms of how it affected the narrative, intercutting the two stories built suspense in that one only got a piece of each story at a time and had to wait for the next piece. I think that the stories work decently together, although I was sort of waiting for there to be more of a concrete connection between them other than setting. I suppose that one can’t rewrite history, but I felt that some kind of linking mechanism was missing and it made the book seem unfinished. Perhaps the author could have subtly given more clues about his reason for turning not just two, but in fact several, different stories into one cohesive book. I didn’t really prefer reading one story over the other and I think that they both would make excellent books by themselves, but Larson’t choice to put them together makes them feel deeper and more applicable to society in general. Overall, the two stories were good complements to each other and their being told together did not detract from, but rather, enhanced the book as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe he choose to tell them together because in a way they complement each other. If Burnham’s story had been told alone it would have been rather boring. I would have preferred to have just read Holmes’s part. But by providing background knowledge through Burnham’s part the reader can get a better understanding of the time period. Larson shows what an impact both of these men had on Chicago and the World’s Fair. By doing this he balances out their two stories nicely. Even though I personally would have preferred to only read Holmes’s parts, the book would not be as interesting with out Burnham’s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree morgan. I would have preferred to read just Holmes' story but like you said I feel that without Burnham, Holmes story might have been a little confusing without that background knowledge of the fair.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Holmes' story would have been just a random one about a serial killer if it was told alone? Maybe the plot wouldn't have been as appreciated?

      Delete
  7. I think that Erik Larson chose to tell these two stories together because they so sharply contrast each other. Burnham was good, and had a very positive attitude about the city. He worked himself half to death to try and make it beautiful. Because of him the city was known as "The White City". His quote near the end of the novel was "You'll see it lovely. I never will. But it will be lovely." Burnham wanted nothing more then to build the city up to great heights. And then there is his polar opposite, Dr. H.H. Holmes. Holmes was the most self centered and conceited person anyone could imagine. Holmes killed for no other reason then he liked killing. He would have had no remorse at all to see the entire city burn down, not caring for its reputation in the least. Holmes himself countered the White City with blackness. Because of people like Holmes the city was also called the Black City.
    The stories worked out alright with each other because they were about the same city, one person working to make it great, the other working to destroy it. I would have preferred to read just Homes part because at many times, despite the interesting information of Burnham's story, I about fell asleep. His section was just so dry compared to the quick paced suspenseful Holmes story. At many times I found myself just pushing through Burnham's story to get back to Holmes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree that Larson was trying to contrast the two stories. I especially like your point about Holmes contrasting the White City with his "blackness". It's very important to see the two different sides of Chicago at the time. I get your point about Burnham being a bit boring, but at the same time it was very important to the story.

      Delete
    2. I like your point about Holmes being egocentric... I wonder if most serial killers are egomaniacs? They all believe that they can get away with anything, so they try.

      Delete
  8. I believe that Erik Larson chose to tell the stories of Holmes and Burnham together because they are nearly exact opposites. They show two vastly different sides to Chicago at the time of the fair. The book went back and forth between Burnham, who was doing everything in his power to build up the city and make it magnificent, and Holmes, who represented the absolute worst of what Chicago had to offer. While Burnham slaved away day and night to make the city truly extraordinary for those who visited, Holmes manipulated, kidnapped, and murdered vulnerable young women who came to enjoy Burnham's creation. To me it seemed interested that the work of Daniel Burnham almost allowed Holmes to commit his crimes. Without the thousands of people arriving for the fair, Holmes would have had a very difficult time finding victims to stay in his "hotel". Although I preferred to read the Holmes narrative, I thought the contrasting views of the city were very interesting, and overall I thought they worked well with each other. The back and forth between the simultaneous good and evil allowed me to see the setting of the story in two completely different ways. Even if Burnham's sections got boring, the contrast kept me interested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I agree with Garrett completely, without Burnham, Holmes' 'success' as a killer would have never happened. Burnham created the perfect setting, never before and never again seen.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Larson wrote the two stories together because they needed to be told together. For one reason, without the Burnham part the book would have only been a few chapters long. It also gives some insight to the time period. Without that background information Holmes’s story seems improbable and illogical. During this time there was such a large crushing force of people concentrated in one area that it was impossible to keep track of everyone. The police couldn't possibly look into every missing person. The Burnham part explains how Holmes could get away with murdering so many women without anyone becoming suspicious.

    The stories work together well. They complement each other. Without one the other would seem irrelevant. There were certain parts that would seem odd without the other part as explanation. Such as the part when Holmes goes to the fair. If one was only reading about Holmes they wouldn't get the full implications of what that meant, it would just be Holmes walking around at some fair. Without Burnham’s story Holmes’s couldn't have existed. Even though the two parts need to be told together doesn't mean I enjoyed both parts equally. I much preferred the Holmes part. I found myself rushing through the Burnham part in order to find more out about Holmes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I believe that Larson chose to tell Burnham and Holmes’ stories together because they are so different. Together the stories represent Chicago as a whole. Burnham’s story and the “White City” show the good and prosperous side while Holmes and his murder castle show the growing poverty, crime, and unrest. When told together the stories really make you think of how large the divide between upper and lower class was, you could clearly see the difference in the quality of life. This helps the reader get a feel for the real Chicago. It wasn’t just the beautiful buildings of the fair, or just the criminals and garbage. It was the combination of the two, the good and the bad, that made Chicago was it was, and still is.
    While I get more excitement out of Holmes’ story I feel that it wouldn’t work on its own. Like stated before you really needed to see both sides of Chicago and the couldn’t have happened without both stories. While the only interaction between the two stories is the fact that Holmes’ hotel gets most of its business from the fair and that he takes his ladies there to court them, the story wouldn’t make sense without the Burnham part. Anymore, the Chicago Worlds Fair is not common knowledge and most people would not understand the grandness and significance of such an event without being told what went into it. I personally believe that it helped me see the scale of both stories and added to my reading experience.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe that Erik Larson put the two different stories together because they are both during the same era and the same location. If Burnham’s story was a book all alone, it would have boon extremely boring and very hard to keep interest in. I think that if Holmes’s story would have been its own separate book, it would have been a lot more interesting and a lot easier to keep interest with. With all of the background information it helped give a sense of what the time period was and what people did during that era. Both Burnham and Holmes had a huge affect on the city, the people of the city, and also the World Fair. With the characters all impacting the same things, it balanced out the book really nicely. I think that if the book was just about Holmes’s, then the audience wouldn’t have had the opportunity to have learned more about that time period.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think he chose to write the two stories into the same book because the stories contrasted well, but also because Burnham and Holmes were alike in some ways. The stories contrast for obvious reasons, Burnhams story was not nearly as dark as Holmes story. However Burnham and Holmes were both very smart, Holmes was just used it in a bad way. They both did serious planning and did their "work" very intricately. He also could have done it because these were two very significant happenings from the exact same time. These stories actually had something to do with each other. If you think about it a lot of the Holmes story wouldn't have taken place. A lot of his victims wouldn't have been there if the fair hadn't drawn them there. In this way the stories are kind of interconnected. For these reasons I think these stories worked well together. If the stories had been separate I think that Burnham's story could have gotten boring. Holmes action story balanced Burnhams well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with everything Alyssa said. The stories did contrast very well, sometimes almost too much though that it got to be very lengthy. I like that you said Burnham's story would have gotten boring if it was alone, which I think is very true. Holmes's story added a little kick to the World's Fair and again when you said if it wasn't for the fair, then Holmes wouldn't have had as many killlings. I really think you explained this very well, both the pros and cons of having these two stories together and then utlimately coming up with the conclusion that it was a good thing they were told together.

      Delete
    2. Sometimes I think that Larson wanted to write Burnham's story so badly -- I think that was his passion. BUT, he knew that he would have trouble selling the architect's story...so he decided to balance it out with Holmes!

      Delete
  14. Devil in the White City is a novel about determination more than it is a book about a fair or a murderer. Burnham accomplished great architectural feats despite time restraints, and Holmes was able to live through his fantasy even though he really should have been caught earlier. Erik Larson put these stories together, not because they compliment each other, but simply because they complete each other. They are the same story and could not be told separately. They follow the same character, a man with a dream, doing the same thing; working to pursue that dream. Although their dreams may be different, the way they come into fruition is exactly the same. Larson wanted to tell this beautiful story, but the architectural side was too boring, and the Holmes murders didn't leave enough detail to wrote a novel about. So instead he took these two stories, and combined them, because it was the only way it would make sense, and because in essence they really are the same story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the way you took this prompt! Many other postings have been about contrast, but I agree with you that it was the similarities between the stories that really allowed them to be integrated into one another. I'm wondering, however, what you mean when you said they come to fruition in the same way. How did you see their actions as similar? I was under the impression murder and architecture were completely different.

      Delete
    2. Yes, murder and architecture are different, but both were accomplished through the determination of either Holmes or Burnham. Both tasks are very difficult (even though I would hope murder would be a little more difficult), and the only reason they were able to happen at all, was because Holmes and Burnham worked hard.

      Delete
    3. Dustin -- I like that you looked at both the stories thematically. Determination is a good word to sum it all up.

      Delete
  15. Much like how human to human interaction helps bring out the best in some people, two stories can complement each other in a way that intensifies the message they convey. Larson adopted this notion and used it to portray the contrasting accounts of Burnham’s glorious feat and Holmes’ gruesome one. Both stories entail zealous men who take on extraordinary endeavors in an effort to acquire the sense of accomplishment they reserve a sore longing for. While Burnham sought to bequest a certain pride for not only himself but for his city in creating the World’s Fair, Holmes’ bloodthirsty persona bottled him up into a dark world of manipulation and sequential extermination. This apparent juxtaposition, brilliantly fashioned by Larson, serves to enhance the story by directly juggling the virtuous and the dishonorable. This greatly rallied the suspense throughout the narrative; as the reader became perplexed by Holmes’ binge on carcasses, Burnham’s plight echoed in their mind making the two essentially synchronous. I appreciate Larson’s ability to force me to reflect on the prevalence of good and evil and their coexistence in society to this day. Without this duality; Burnham and Holmes, Larson would have lacked the strength, as a writer, to dig deep into a human being and make a dent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I liked the point you made about the opposing goals/feats of the two main characters. Like you said, both were searching for a sense of accomplishment, but where they got that feeling came from two totally different sources. Burnham sought glory and pride for himself and Chicago through hard work and dedication. Holmes sought blood and power and achieved that through murder. People will go to great lengths to feel power, pride, and accomplishment, and the two opposing sources of these feelings shown in the novel is yet another reason why the stories were told together. The two main characters showcased the fact that every person is different when it comes to how they achieve happiness. This is how we distinguish "good versus evil." So in conclusion, I think the point you made about opposing sources of accomplishment is great, I did not think of it when I analyzed the novel!

      Delete
    2. I liked the point you made about the opposing goals/feats of the two main characters. Like you said, both were searching for a sense of accomplishment, but where they got that feeling came from two totally different sources. Burnham sought glory and pride for himself and Chicago through hard work and dedication. Holmes sought blood and power and achieved that through murder. People will go to great lengths to feel power, pride, and accomplishment, and the two opposing sources of these feelings shown in the novel is yet another reason why the stories were told together. The two main characters showcased the fact that every person is different when it comes to how they achieve happiness. This is how we distinguish "good versus evil." So in conclusion, I think the point you made about opposing sources of accomplishment is great, I did not think of it when I analyzed the novel!

      Delete
  16. #1 The Devil in the White City is unique because it takes two stories that would seem to not have anything to do with each other and tells them together. Although both plots occurred at the same time, they are as different as black and white. I think he told the stories to show the dynamism of Chicago, of the time period, and of people in general. The comparison expressed the contrast of the city and the world at the time period. The comparison also gave the reader a feel for the business and hassle of the city/world at the time. This helps to explain how Holmes's murder plot was made possible at the time. On one hand, the city was prospering, rising from the ashes, and becoming prominent in the world. On the other hand, murder and evil was rising. I think he told the stories together to balance the good and bad of the world. If the story was just about Burnham, people would get the idea that Chicago has always been prosperous and inviting. While this is correct in some aspects it's not entirely true as seen in the Holmes plot. However if the novel was simply about Holmes, it would be more interesting but Chicago would be forever deemed as a dangerous and dark city. The two stories balance eachother out when it comes to perspectives on Chicago and that's why I think they worked well together.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The juxtaposition of Burnham and Holmes' stories created intrigue and suspense that wouldn't have been created otherwise. This lead to a lasting effect that forced the reader to continue the journey into the marvelous 1893 World's Fair and the excruciatingly demented mind of Holmes. At times I found myself reading through Burnham sections wondering what Holmes was up to, not being able to wait for the Holmes parts. This was also true sometimes when I was reading the Holmes parts. The journey into the mind of Holmes was a unique experience. Erik Larson did an amazing job with contrasting the whole plot of the Holmes killings and the brilliance of the fair. The two stories complemented each other in an enthralling manner. Even though I knew that Holmes would be caught and that the fair would be built, the story was still captivating for me. Larson knew that these two contrasting yet very similar stories would draw the reader further into the book, which was exactly what happened. The narrative was very alluring due to the apprehension throughout. There weren't too many dull moments for me. I really liked the book and the flow between the Holmes and Burnham stories. Even the thrown in Prendergast part created had me reeling for more. The cohesiveness of the book was phenomenal and exemplary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you think the Prendergast portion of the novel added to the juxtaposition you mentioned, or was it more of a side note that was interesting but not a literary necessity?

      Delete
    2. I believe that the Prendergast portion of the novel was somewhat of a necessity. His story wasn't just there, rather it added to the plot as a whole. The readers got to see what happened to Prendergast and Mayor Harrison. I think that the novel could have been completed and delivered without the Prendergast portion but his story did make the book as a whole more interesting.

      Delete
  18. I think that the author chose to tell these two stories because they contrast each other perfectly. They show the two sides of Chicago during the time and reinstate the idea of the White City and the Black City. A common theme in the book is good vs. evil and the telling these two stories is almost a perfect depiction of it during the time period. I believe that both of these stories must have been told in order for the author to get his message across. On one side, the Fair represents the growing prosperity and magnificence of all of its wonders it beholds. On the other side, the author shows the crime, poverty, and darkness of Chicago. These two stories symbolize the truth behind the world. If the fair was told, we would be missing the fact that not everything was as great as what people thought it would be. Behind all the extravagance of the fair lies its complete opposite. If the author just told the Holmes’s story, we would lose the other point. Not everything was terrible in Chicago. Although there was crime and poverty, this was an era of innovation and technology and a feeling of growth and prosperity as well. I believe that the author chose to use these two stories to show that in reality, there are both good and bad things. Nothing can be perfect, and this is shown in the construction of the fair and the crime that happened on the side. However, the opposite cannot be said as well. This is the beauty of the world as there is always hope and room for improvement. I think that the author wanted to show us the balance between good and evil using these two instances in history. Although I found the Holmes plot slightly more interesting, I believe that both stories must have been there in order for the author to have gotten his true meaning across.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you about the contrast between the Black City and the White City. Holmes representing the black portion of Chicago while the fair represented the white portion of Chicago. Your point that hope will always be present seemed very well thought through. Your ideas throughout your response seem to mirror my beliefs. You also pointed out the fact that despite Holmes and the rest of the Black City there are advancements in technology along with other improvements. The bad comes with the good. In a way the bad is needed for society to make improvements. You made a great point that improvements come from seeing the bad in society. The good and evil during this time period and how Larson portrayed the characters did give great insight to the readers. I couldn't really agree with you more Jeffrey.

      Delete
  19. Larson chose to tell Burnham and Holmes stories together to show that there is good and evil in the world. No matter how much good is being done, there will always be something somewhere else that counteracts that good. Burnham represented everything great that was going on in Chicago at that time. He was trying so hard and putting tons of effort into making Chicago the best fair the world had to offer. He wanted the city he lived in to shine and be appreciated for its greatness. Holmes on the other hand brought the city down and killed many of its residents. It's interesting these two completely different stories were told together, I really liked it. I would read the Burnham part and be transported to a sparkling place full of glistening buildings and happy things, then on the next page I would read about Holmes gassing people. Reading the Burnham story made Holmes story seem even more horrible, just like reading Holmes' story made Burnham seem even more amazing and brilliant. These stories contrasted each other, yet built each other up at the same time. It made both of them more powerful to read. Although I did find the Holmes story more exciting to read, I wouldn't have wanted to read it separately. I really enjoyed reading them both together, and I don't think I would have appreciated it as much if they were separate. Also switching from story to story kept my attention, whereas focusing on just one story would have seemed more dragged out and not as exciting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really like your statement that evil will always be present, and I feel that Larson did in fact demonstrate this point well with the use of the two stories. At the end of the book, the capture and sentencing of Holmes seems like a victory for the good guys. However, as Larson gives a brief rundown of everyone's life after the fair, I think he is trying to make a point about how evil often does triumph over good. If you think about it, the lives of all these fantastic people were pretty lame, and many of them died very shortly after or in tragic ways. I think this really emphasizes Larson's point about the balance between good and evil, and also highlights idealism, as was such a prominent part of the fair.

      Delete
    2. Brittany -- nice job! I agree, the contrast between the two stories only served to enhance each other.

      Delete
  20. I think Larson decided to tell these stories together because they contrast each other like The White City vs. The Black City. The fair (The white city) was meant to be a place that was reasonably safe, and that highlighted Chicago as a clean city. Chicago itself however which in this book is represented by Holmes, is a dangerous place to be especially at this time period. Had Larson chosen to tell just one of the stories, readers would have a very misguided view of Chicago. To every story there is two sides. Without the Holmes story, Readers would not interpret the real inner city as dangerous, they would only know the White City and think that Chicago was glamorous. But without the White City story, people readers would be afraid to step foot in Chicago. Without both stories Larson would not be able to clearly dictate his lesson and meaning in the story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with Christine. chicago is a city where it is black and white. When I go to Chicago, I see someparts as being white, and others, black. If the two wouldn't have been told together, mixed signals would have been given. One way, a person could see it as a lie or not true about the way they were describing it, and others who haven't been in the city, could have been scared of it. The two stories make it a happy medium.

      Delete