4

Devil in the White City takes place in Chicago, during the great World’s Exposition Fair in the 19th century.  The fair was extravagant. The buildings were huge and the architects and fair planners looked forward to an attendance rate of two hundred thousand people each day that the fair would be running, which was about six months. That means that altogether, they hoped that the overall attendance would be at about thirty six million people.
Some may argue that the architects and designers of the fair created it to be overly extravagant, implying that they had an air of arrogance about them. It is entirely true; the designers and the architects even admitted it themselves. The reason behind the extravagant buildings was that they wanted the Chicago Fair to be much better than the Paris Fair held a few years earlier. The greatest monument of the Paris Fair was the tower that Eiffel designed, and it was this tower that architects wanted to top in the Chicago Fair. Multiple designs were rejected that could have easily been better than the Eiffel tower, but apparently they weren’t good enough to surpass it. Until, of course, they accepted the design of a rotating wheel submitted by Ferris.
Multiple other occasions also added to the arrogance of the fair. Buffalo Bill wanted a day where all of the children could get into the fair for free (he was thinking of the orphans at this time), but officials didn’t like that idea because they wouldn’t get any profit from the boost of attendance. This displays the minds of the officials in that they were focused on the financial aspect of the fair, not making the fair better for the civilians of the world.
While these may suggest a darker, destructive parallel, they certainly do not necessarily automatically engender it. The fair does not automatically lead to destruction. While the fair was very arrogant to say the least, there were many positive aspects from the fair. Without the fair, we wouldn’t have had some of the modern everyday occurrences. Some inventions were on the smaller scale, such as Cracker Jack and Shredded Wheat. The most significant invention was probably Ferris’s wheel, which was the symbol of the entire Chicago Fair.
The only destructive parallel was the fact that H. H. Holmes, America’s first serial killer, performed his murders around the fair. He built a hotel near the fair in anticipation of flocking guests from around the United States and around the world as well. His murders were able to go unnoticed because of the hustle and bustle of the fair, so one might argue that if the fair never happened, these innocent lives would be saved. There would also be a counter-argument to that: What if more murders would happen because the fair did not happen? Who is to say that Dr. H. H. Holmes would not have found somewhere else to execute his murders and remain unnoticed?
But ultimately, the fact that many single women seeking employment (his target for his murders) came to Chicago because of the opportunities the fair provided, the fair contributed to a destructive parallel.

3

The ineluctable conflict between good and evil is revealed in the book Devil in the White City by Erik Larson, the story of the World’s Exposition Fair that took place in Chicago in 1893. The story takes two main points, each side taking turns in the chapters of the book. The first is the view of Burnham, an architect who organized the fair, and the second is Dr. H. H. Holmes, America’s first serial killer. Good is represented by Burnham, who tries his best to improve the fair and make it the best that it can possibly be. Evil is represented by Dr. H. H. Holmes, who seems to only think about gaining finances, taking advantage of women, and murdering women or those who get in the way of his plans. While these men are both drastically different, with Burnham helping society and Holmes silently disrupting it, the two actually have a lot in common with each other. Both men are architects. Burnham pursues architectural design as a career, and started up his own business practice. Holmes is also an architecture even though he is a doctor. Holmes planned out a hotel in which he hired many, many men to build parts of. Only Holmes knew what the overall design of the hotel was because he was the only one who managed the overall layout, and went through workers very quickly. Some workers would only build a little bit of the hotel before Holmes fired them to make sure that they didn’t know every intricacy of the building. Both men are ambitious. At a very young age, Holmes became very successful financially. He also finished college and medical school, something that’s not very common among serial killers. During the months before the fair, Burnham stresses how important it is to finish every building in time for opening day.
Good and evil conflict in quite a few ways. There is, of course, the obvious reason that Holmes is murdering those who would attend the fair and thus therefore he is hurting the profit of the fair. But that’s only the surface. The doctor’s activity is chilling and horrific, that it may lead one to question their own safety. Holmes is, after all, the first serial killer in America. Anyone would be concerned for their own safety or for the safety of their family. The fair was created to bring families together in awe of what Chicago could offer. It wasn’t something that just an individual went to; rather, the families were always brought along for the vacation. The murders disrupted the peaceful family ideal by striking panic and fear among those who knew about them. Holmes murdered mainly women. These women, however, were women who were new to Chicago and the idea of freedom. He was able to take advantage of them, something that a typical “bad guy” would do. Unfortunately for these girls, though, Burnham isn’t the typical “good guy” who will save them from the villain. Just who is the “good guy”? Or is there no good guy at all?

2

“A Modest Proposal”, when the reader does not know that Dr. Jonathan Swift is sarcastic, is a piece that questions the sanity of the author. In 1729, he complains that poor women have multiple children that they cannot care for properly. The piece starts out with a serious tone. He is genuinely concerned for the wellbeing of these children. As the reader continues, the tone changes drastically. The previous genuine concern seems fake as Swift brings up the idea that these children should be eaten.  

As I read through this piece, I was concerned. I asked other people if what they were reading matched up with what I was reading because I didn’t know if cannibalism was really what Swift wanted to talk about. I read through it and annotated but it was only after Mrs. Moe told us that it was a satirical piece and that he was only pointing out how inhumane the Irish people were that I understood the meaning of it. I should have known that he was being sarcastic, but I was reading the piece as a surface reading rather than trying to understand the deeper meaning of it. 

I read through the piece one more time to get a deeper understanding of it, and I saw that at points, he was being completely serious. The Irish people were in a time of poverty, and Swift disguised his suggestions to help them with the outrageous idea of selling and eating children. He brought up that this outrageous idea would help the economy. This suggests that there could be other ways that these people could help their economy rather than begging. 

Swift also shows concern toward marriage relationships, towards women specifically. In sarcasm, he writes that husbands will no longer beat their wives because the children they carry during pregnancy are too precious to risk harming before the child-birth. He is concerned about the spousal abuse and believes that husbands should respect their wives. He portrays this in such an absurd way that it presents a good reason to refrain from abuse. 

The absurd idea of eating children is what keeps the reader’s focus. The reader continues to read, hoping that at the end, there will be some form of clarification, and that Swift does not really intend to put forth the idea of eating children. He uses this absurd idea to get his real point across. 

This absurd idea also portrays Swift’s poor image of the Irish people. He uses language that dehumanizes them. These people are so poor that they would listen to the idea of selling their children and that implies that they would consider taking up that practice. Swift turns procreation into a business, suggesting that the Irish are heartless and don’t consider babies worth the title of human. These children are compared to slaughtered animals. Infants are compared to crops when he describes that their flesh will be “in season” throughout the year, but mostly in March. Swift’s language portrays that these people wouldn’t listen to humane ideas of dealing with their economic problems, so solving the issues with such inhumane tactics would be the best way in their opinion. 

I found it interesting that this piece was written in the 1700s. I’ve read literature that was written after this time period, and it all seemed similar in the sense that the authors were very direct and went straight to the point of what they were trying to say. In this piece, however, he is being very sarcastic. I’m sure that it was very uncommon for readers when they picked up this piece. For it being much older than modern prose, it could easily be mistaken for a modern piece of literature. The language is mature, but it’s not outdated, so the reader understands what Swift is saying. While it takes a bit of understanding, the reader understands that Swift is using this type of language to convey his real opinion. 

This work can be effective as long as the reader understands that it’s saturated in satire. If the reader, like myself, only read it at a surface level, they would be extremely confused about what Swift was really trying to say. It’s a piece that should be for older readers - younger readers would not understand his real point and would become confused in the outrageous suggestion of cannibalism. 

Overall, I thought it was a really interesting piece. However, I still really hope that he really is just being sarcastic.“A Modest Proposal”, when the reader does not know that Dr. Jonathan Swift is sarcastic, is a piece that questions the sanity of the author. In 1729, he complains that poor women have multiple children that they cannot care for properly. The piece starts out with a serious tone. He is genuinely concerned for the well being of these children. As the reader continues, the tone changes drastically. The previous genuine concern seems fake as Swift brings up the idea that these children should be eaten.  

As I read through this piece, I was concerned. I asked other people if what they were reading matched up with what I was reading because I didn’t know if cannibalism was really what Swift wanted to talk about. I read through it and annotated but it was only after Mrs. Moe told us that it was a satirical piece and that he was only pointing out how inhumane the Irish people were that I understood the meaning of it. I should have known that he was being sarcastic, but I was reading the piece as a surface reading rather than trying to understand the deeper meaning of it. 

I read through the piece one more time to get a deeper understanding of it, and I saw that at points, he was being completely serious. The Irish people were in a time of poverty, and Swift disguised his suggestions to help them with the outrageous idea of selling and eating children. He brought up that this outrageous idea would help the economy. This suggests that there could be other ways that these people could help their economy rather than begging. 

Swift also shows concern toward marriage relationships, towards women specifically. In sarcasm, he writes that husbands will no longer beat their wives because the children they carry during pregnancy are too precious to risk harming before the child-birth. He is concerned about the spousal abuse and believes that husbands should respect their wives. He portrays this in such an absurd way that it presents a good reason to refrain from abuse. 

The absurd idea of eating children is what keeps the reader’s focus. The reader continues to read, hoping that at the end, there will be some form of clarification, and that Swift does not really intend to put forth the idea of eating children. He uses this absurd idea to get his real point across. 

This absurd idea also portrays Swift’s poor image of the Irish people. He uses language that dehumanizes them. These people are so poor that they would listen to the idea of selling their children and that implies that they would consider taking up that practice. Swift turns procreation into a business, suggesting that the Irish are heartless and don’t consider babies worth the title of human. These children are compared to slaughtered animals. Infants are compared to crops when he describes that their flesh will be “in season” throughout the year, but mostly in March. Swift’s language portrays that these people wouldn’t listen to humane ideas of dealing with their economic problems, so solving the issues with such inhumane tactics would be the best way in their opinion. 

I found it interesting that this piece was written in the 1700s. I’ve read literature that was written after this time period, and it all seemed similar in the sense that the authors were very direct and went straight to the point of what they were trying to say. In this piece, however, he is being very sarcastic. I’m sure that it was very uncommon for readers when they picked up this piece. For it being much older than modern prose, it could easily be mistaken for a modern piece of literature. The language is mature, but it’s not outdated, so the reader understands what Swift is saying. While it takes a bit of understanding, the reader understands that Swift is using this type of language to convey his real opinion. 

This work can be effective as long as the reader understands that it’s saturated in satire. If the reader, like myself, only read it at a surface level, they would be extremely confused about what Swift was really trying to say. It’s a piece that should be for older readers - younger readers would not understand his real point and would become confused in the outrageous suggestion of cannibalism. 

Overall, I thought it was a really interesting piece. However, I still really hope that he really is just being sarcastic.

1

“The fight with Cohn had not touched his spirit but his face had been smashed and his body hurt. He was wiping all that out now. Each thing he did with that bull wiped that out a little cleaner.”
Pedro Romero is the true Hemingway hero. He shows grace under pressure and continues to get up even when knocked down. He certainly proved it when Cohn found Brett in his room and began to punch Romero repeatedly. The reader could see that it was hard on Romero, but he kept standing up only to be knocked down again. When Cohn broke down into tears and asked Romero to forgive him and to shake hands, Romero punched Cohn in the face. Romero shows his masculinity with threats to kill Cohn if Cohn tried to help him, or even if he saw Cohn again.
At the bull fight, he showed grace. He did not show that he was hurt by Cohn while he was fighting the bull. He fought as though he was not injured at all. He fought the bull gracefully. Even before he was injured, he demonstrated grace. He didn’t need to exaggerate the danger of fighting the bull. He fought like a traditional bull fighter. He didn’t have to fake the danger. Everything about Pedro Romero was real. He gave a real show to the crowd. The bull-fight wasn’t faked to look more dangerous than it was. He showed the real danger by fighting the bull the proper way.
Romero is the complete opposite of Jake, the character who would seem like the hero, but he doesn’t quite have what it takes to be a Hemingway hero. Before Cohn went in a rage after Romero, his anger lashed out at Jake. Cohn demanded to know where Brett was, and he believed that Jake had the answer to that. When Jake said that he didn’t know, Cohn didn’t believe him and called him a “pimp”. This was an insult to Jake, who responded by swinging a punch at Cohn. Cohn hit Jake, and instead of fighting back like a true “man”, Jake crawled underneath a nearby table to hide.
It was no surprise that Brett fell in love with Pedro Romero. While it is true that she loved Jake, Jake was not “manly” enough to give her what she wanted the most. Romero is manly. Romero had the ability to satisfy her. Romero could give Brett what she wanted. Unlike the other men, Romero wasn’t used by Brett. He was not one of the men that she destroyed. He was probably hurt that she left, but it didn’t destroy her life. We don’t hear about his reaction to her leaving him.  Most men are damaged by Brett, like Cohn and Mike who resort to violence and drinking. Romero doesn’t show that he is damaged from his relationship with Brett.
Pedro Romero is a hero because he has a sense of pride about him. As stated before, he doesn’t fake the danger in the bull fights. He doesn’t need any handicap for what he loves to do. The other bull fighters change their method because they think that it is what the crowd wants. Romero actually knows what the crowd wants, and it’s not what those other bull fighters are doing. He is real when he is fighting the bulls. He doesn’t need to put on an act or pretend that it’s dangerous. The danger that Romero goes through when he goes up against the bulls is real danger. He doesn’t exaggerate it at all. It actually seems like a dance when he gets the bulls attention and then moves off to the side. He is graceful when he handles the bulls, which is something that normal people would not be able to pull off. He is calm and he treats the bulls “like friends”. He knows how to handle himself and how to handle life better than some of the other characters in the novel.

Semester 2

17

In the 1990s, millions of Americans dedicated their hours watching someone else's drama. The trial of OJ Simpson was the focus of many American lives. This single trial caused such a racial controversy - as the judges announced the verdict in favor of Simpson (the trial was to determine whether he killed his wife or not - and his wife was Caucasian while he was African-American), the two races separated to different sides of the room. Albom further describes the effects of this single trial - from not being able to trust the police to attorneys taking cases in hopes of becoming famous.

I agree with Albom's idea. A single action can affect many lives years after it's been "forgotten". Take for example, the terrorist attack on September eleventh. Since then, those with an Arab background are seen as suspicious - some people refuse to trust them because of what people of the same religion did many years ago. What we do now affects what happens years from now, which affects what happens years from then.