The Devil In The White City #3

The Chicago World Fair changed America in a lot of ways. One of the biggest things was that people’s idea of America had changed a lot. They now knew what we could be able to accomplish and the boundaries we were willing to push in order to be the best. The World Fair was the first large scale fair in America, and the previous fairs that were in France. For many centuries after, we were accomplished by building the amazing fair and made a huge profit, the view of America basically changed permanently for many people, especially people who were able to visit the fair. The Chicago World Fair provided us with a place to show of marvels: large buildings/structures, eclectic exhibits like Egypt, and also showed a lot of our values. A large part of the marvels at this particular fair was the Ferris wheel, the biggest in the world. It was said that nearly 46 people could fit into one of the seating areas, which were basically the size of a small house. We should off a great deal of our culture, but of other cultures as well. We showed off things from different countries like Germany, Egypt, Italy, and this showed that we wanted people to realize what America could do and also what other countries did. As a country it also showed of achievements of other places as well. The World Fair started a restoration of people’s wants and morals. The people that went to the fair and what they said about the fair was extremely influential to some people. A big thing that changed was fashion and women were started to dress with new styles and changing from the modern morays of the time. People began expanding their palate, with eating foods from other countries, which were available at the fair. Something that Chicago wanted to do is show that the architecture they created and built was works of art, not just paintings and sculptures. Another big part of the fair was the numerous inventions that were created just for the fair. Things like the Ferris wheel, which I mentioned earlier, and showed off our uses of electricity with incandescent light bulbs, and a structure created out of the light which was timed with music. People could also see these inventions and potentially change the way that they lived with things like, electric incubators for eggs, the “moving sidewalk”, laundry machines, etc.. But the marvel of inventions was Thomas Edison’s Kaleidoscope. This showed moving pictures and was created to draw in tourists and make an even larger profit for the fair. Also around the fair you could pay special photographers to take photos for you since you were not permitted to take photographs yourself. The fair was influential to many as well as inspirational. Many architects were realizing that they could become famous and make a living off something that they were talented at and loved to do. These architects were able to show off their skills to the public and citizens of Chicago and tourists were able to see these wonders for only a few cents, which was the cost to get into the fair. They had the ability to interact with new inventions and experience new things. By doing this they helped stimulate the economy and spread different types architecture, music, and art and helped others accept other cultures.

The Devil In The White City #2

Some things that our nation definitely tends to worry about is the latest in fashion, money, and fame, which sounds very self-centered. We always want the biggest and want what is the best or what is the latest in technology or what is on the market. America has always been seen as an amazing place or the country of prosperity. Even hundreds of years ago, America was the country that everyone wanted to live in. Another way to make this country more appealing is add an element of excitement: The World Fair. What comes with the beginnings of the world fair is a sense of arrogance and excess amounts of pride. Even with the fair in this book being in Chicago, it would fail unless it beat the fair previous to it, the Fair in France. The fair was designed as a way to bring revenue into the venue place and make that place even more and more appealing. No matter what the cost of the fair, or the stakes that are against them it had to be the biggest, the most extravagant, and the best. In order for us to have the best there is uncommonly the arrogance part of everything. America wanted to be number one and we showed the world the arrogant, prideful, and selfish side of us. We had become so greedy we didn’t care about anything but being the best. The Fair had to shock visitors and bring them to their knees. They needed to see what America could do, what beauty they could create in such little time. We needed to have all eyes on us during the show. When arrogance is thrown into the creation of something there is always a darker side. You have all your emotions coming into effect: your greed, your needs, and everything else. With everything light there is a dark. With beauty there is always an ugly side and that is exactly how it was for the world fair. The whole novel is encompassed by the comparison of the light and dark and this is a great example. The book even explains how the fair will bring out those who are different in the darkness and show people of Chicago what lies right under their noses. With the advancement of Holman and the fair, Holmes advances and so does his murdering sprees. Holmes becomes some what of an architect himself when he builds the building for himself and other businesses to occupy. He also throws in the greed factor. In the novel it explains how Holmes will buy anything he wants without paying and when collectors come, he somehow makes the, go away and he never has to pay a penny. Without showing this underlying effect of good and evil the novel would not be factual. Larson had to say and show everything exactly how it was and he accomplished that. And by explaining the destruction of the fair was because of arrogance you really show that when there is light there is always a dark. And Larson does a great job showing it and explaining it without having to make it easier for those to read.

The Devil in the White City

Larson begins his novel with the intro “Evils Imminent”. He talks about how there will be good and evil in this story, where good is Burnham and evil portion is Holmes. When Larson writes, “Beneath the gore and smoke and loam…” he is explaining what the setting of the story will be. These words are used to describe the stock yards and the dirty streets that were really only seen in Chicago during the 1800’s. Burnham and Holmes are similar with the fact that they are both very passionate about the things they do and they are hard workers and want to get the job done. What's different is the job they’re doing. One does architecture and the other does murder. They both become well known for what they have done and accomplished. They live their lives with their own rules and they don't do what others say they should. Larson jumps into describing Holmes as a gentleman that is honest and trustworthy, but the evil inside of him isn’t shown. His murders have to be perfect because he strives for perfection. They have to go exactly as he plans them.
 Burnham’s ideas of perfection are with his buildings and his architecture. He works to create the biggest and the best buildings. His buildings always have to be taller than his competitor’s buildings. He wants the fame and the money for his buildings and the only way for him to achieve that is by creating the art out of his buildings. Burnham is always thinking of the fair and worrying about how he will make it better than the fair that was in France. Although they both have different occupations, they’re lives are somewhat the same with the fact that was to pursue and achieve greatness in the things they do.
The two men are quite similar with the fact that they create things that some view as impossible. The two men are connected to each other even though, ironically, neither of them have met the other. They are similar in how passionate they are and how they want to perfect everything they come across. But they are inevitably brought together by a single event “The World Fair.” You will notice in the book that Good and Evil, light and dark, White City and Black City are contrasted with the book’s main characters. Burnham is associated with the good, the light, and the white city. Holmes is associates with the evil, the dark, and the black city. In the story the White City is the beautiful, artistic, and glorious part of Chicago that most people walking around see, the place where Burnham thrives. Burnham has created much of the White City and that is where he sees his perfection. On the other hand, the Black City, is the place where Holmes thrives. This is the place that not many people see. It’s the darker side of Chicago, where Holmes can perfect his craft: murder. This is the place that people don’t want to see or talk about. They show the “dirty” part of the city and a place where not many people want to live. Larson uses this not only to prepare readers for the comparison of these two subjects, and the fact that their passion for perfection might cause their demise.

Extra Credit - Satire

Satire is a form of literary writing that many authors use. When using satire,things in our society are usually ridiculed and shown to the world in a different light. Satire doesn't only create humor about the subject, but it can also create social criticism using different words as help fix problems in the society. Today's forms of satire can be found in many places including sae isn't something that has come out recently, its been around for an extremely long time. One of the earliest examples of satire is The Satire of the Trades. It is an Egyptian writing from the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. The readers of this text were students, tired of studying. It argues that their lot as scribes is useful, and their lot far superior to that of ordinary men. Some scholars thought the text was supposed to be serious but this was the beginning of satire.
For many writersand movie producers satire is used as one of their main weapons. H.L. Mencken, a social critic, said that “one horse-laugh is worth then thousand syllogisms” in the persuasion of the public to accept criticism. You could say that satire is trying to “correct” social behavior. “The reason satirists don’t just write moral stories encouraging people to good worth, and the reason they feel warranted in showing his anger and fury at the common faults and vices of men is that the satirist's world is not a world of basic good accidentally gone astray, where every man would seek good if he know how or were shown the way, but rather it is one of fools who either claim to possess virtue already, or who have already rejected it, claiming that vice is (or is as good as) virtue. “ (Robert Harris). What this quote is saying is that you can’t just show naive man facts and try and make him change but you can show him the same thing but in a satirical way and he thinks that maybe change could be possible. He gets to figure out the idea of change by himself.
Often time’s authors use satire to get their ideas across to others. Satirical authors often mock society in the way they feel it would be in the future, if actions the society takes goes to far. Satire does have a flaw though. Sometimes the only people who understand the meaning of satire are the people who agree with the satire’s criticism. If a person doesn’t agree with the satire’s criticism they might see the text as unsophisticated or stupid. An example of this scenario is the television show South Park. This show is said to be one of the greatest form of satire that was a production in the history of television. Many people think that South Park is hilarious and they love to watch it but others find the show stupid, and immature. Satire can raise valid points about society but its nearly impossible to point out an error that is normal in a culture when many people are so fixed in their culture. So to many satire becomes wuite irrelevant when bringing up social problems. Satire is definitely essential to a free society. Satirists often are forerunners of error in a society. Satirists end up exposing “evils” that we commit every day. For example, a person being mislead in an advertisement and still buying that product. When people do this they end up giving advertisers power to keep misleading consumers. Satire still being around also shows how free of a society we have. We have the ability to point out a flaw in such a manner where it makes fun of the flaw. Luckily we have the ability to criticize powers that people don’t understand. Satire hardly has the ability to be a force of change in society because it is so limited but not everyone has to hear a satirists “voice” for their ideas to be heard. Because society can change because one person heard or read something.
Satire is definitely also a form of persuasion. The tone satirists use can often be read as persuasion or irony. It can plant a seed in a persons’ head and make them think.The text has an underlying meaning that sometimes a person can understand and sometimes a person just cant read between the lines. Satirical televisions shows are getting to be extremely popular now-a-days. Many satirical shows include; David Letterman, Saturday Night Live and the Colbert Report. Televisions seems to be the easiest way for satirist to get a point across because it is understood with humor involved. Another famous satirical work is A Modest Proposal by Jonathon Swift. In his writing he expresses the need for the people of Ireland to start eating children of the poor. He explains that by eating these poor children, it will let the wealthy people and their children thrive along with the community. Swift is trying to promote the consumption of one-year-old children to eliminate the growing number of poor citizens in Ireland. He uses an extreme form of irony to point out the inhumane conditions in colonized Ireland.
Satire can be extremely entertaining for people a days, and it also tries to voice an opinion on problems in society today. Satire can use irony, sarcasm, ridicule, to expose folly. Satire can be seen as a way for people to explain their concerns about something and maybe someone might read or see what they have to say and decide they believe in the same cause. Satire is definitely something that isn’t a recent thing, its been around for an extremely long time. Satirical writers try to shine light on things that many people might never have brought up but they put a humerous twist on it. It makes it almost easier to read and understand. Even though satire doesn’t  ve a great impact on society it does bring up problems that are usually not shown and shows them in a different light, whereas they would usually be shown hidden.

Blog Entry #3

Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal", uses a satirical writing style. Swift talks about the problem in his home country of Ireland. During the early 1700s, famine and poverty were both an issue.  He is writing to the government and persuading them to make a call to action to solve the problem of starvation and to help cut down the population of the homeless. The government doesn't seem to be listening or even attempting to make any effort to fix their problem. This leads Swift, to show people "what's up", writes an essay introducing the idea that the people of Ireland should begin to eat babies, from one to two years old.  The idea itself is unethical, but is drastic enough to get the attention of the government so hopefully they'll do something about it. His idea of eating babies would provide food for those who are hungry and limit the number of mouths that will need to be fed later on in life. By using cannibalism as an example on a way to fix the issue, Swift explains his reasons and makes it sound completely reasonable and not out of the ordinary. He states that from a source 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" so at least we know a child would taste good. The thought of eating another person makes me not want to eat anything. Although the taste itself should be enough, he then says 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." A baby is capable of providing multiple meals which would greatly help the famine problem for many families. It would also serve as an entertaining dish during dinner parties and could also be seen as a delicacy to other countries. Swift then take his idea to another level when he says that the babies' skin could be used to "make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen." Harvesting the children would be considered fashionable as well. This is absolutely disgusting to me, but with the point he is trying to make, it seems humorous. His idea will overall benefit those woman/"breeders," too in which they will 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 nursing them to plumpness. Swift has the courage to state that the country's stock will increase by fifty thousand shillings per annum because of the marketing of baby meat and then the country would also gain the "profit of a new dish." This food would most likely bring new people to shacks and restaurants and the cooks could make it a more sophisticated and expensive plate by adding certain spices and flavors to the baby meat. Very blunt, he said marriages and life in the home would be dramatically improved for the men because they would no longer have any want to beat their wives while pregnant becuase it would damage the little bundle of cash inside of them. Swift says the reason we cannot eat children of an older age, is that boys become lean and hardened and have then have consistency of leather. Girls, wouldn't be an issue with tastiness on the other hand, but they are the ones set to be the breeders and so must be kept around once they have passed the age of eating. Throughout the essay, Swift refers to a number of well-trusted people from America, London, and various other places that have given him solid insight on the taste and profitable part of eating babies. He never actually states their names, but that's probably because they're made up people. He uses these fake sources to give himself credibility on the issue, and maybe also wants the reader to think that the information given by these people was given discreetly and they do not wish for their names to be shared due to such a touchy subject. In the fifth to last paragraph, he gives a "counter argument" which, seems to most likely be his actual argument and includes solid ideas for solving the problems of his country, which doesn't include eating babies. The way he writes this paragraph is very accusatory towards the government and gives the feeling of "You should actually pay attention to me bacause I have actual solutions and ways to help this country. All you have to do is listen." He says that no one should speak to him of these "expedients" until they have some attempt to put them into practice.  Fot the crazy idea of eating children, Swift finally explains that he has no intention of putting that into practice. The reader reads plainly that it was not his intention and he could not even contribute to the idea if he wanted to due to the fact that he has a nine-year old child and a wife that is done being a child "breeder".

Blog Entry #2

Hemingway writes about confronting danger head to head and also writes about how the hero's carry themselves with assurance. One person, in particular, displays these characteristics. Romero confronts danger head on while he's doing his bullfighting. The sport of bullfighting is probably one of the most dangerous sports there is because of the fact that a bull doesn't know when or how it hurts someone, if it ends up hurting someone. Romero goes head to head with the bull every time he bullfights, therefore he is confronting danger head to head. Romero loves bullfighting so much that he doesn't even mind the fact that it could injure or even kill him. Bullfighting is obviously a major part of his life and gives him a purpose for living. The modern heroes of today have similar characteristics to those of Romero with the fact that they confront danger head to head and handle situations with assurance. An example would be with government officials of this day. They deal with war, terrorism, issues with the economy, ect. They all deal with these issues with assurance by assuring the country that they'll handle the issues in a way that will have little or no affect on the United States. A hero of the time could be Harry S. Truman. People may see a hero as someone who saves a town from destruction, like spiderman or superman, but Truman did something like this. he helped the United States avoid a Communistic society, which could have led us to have a way different world than we have today. A hero that worked without violent acts would be Ghandi. He dealt with and helped fix issues without causing a war or destruction. Many people may not have liked the way he worked, but he believed what he was doing was right. In the book, The Sun Also Rises, Romero's hero like qualities are shown every day. While out with a couple of friends at the bar, a fight erupts, and Romero simply backs out of the way and ends up breaking up the fight using words, and not throwing a fist. Women find him to be a good looking man, considering he's a bullfighter. Even though he's admired by many, he doesn't let this go to his ego. He's a very modest man, who loves one thing more than anything and that is bullfighting. Being the simple man he is, he doesn't get caught up in a lot of the things that the other men get caught up in. He sets goals for himself, and he focuses on reaching those goals instead of worrying about things the other men are worried about. When problems arise, he works to get to the bottom of the issue by looking at different perspectives and finding which best suits him. Romero isn't a prude; he enjoys himself and goes out with friends, but he knows his limits. He doesn't follow the crowd and does his own things that make him happy, instead of living to make someone else happy. Some of the men are always at the center of conflict, whereas Romero is there to help resolve the conflicts. He doesn't try to force people to change there ways, he just wants people to see that there are other ways to deal with issues other than violence. Romero uses his words as a shield of sorts to avoid conflict and issues with others. By speaking properly and knowing what he is talking about, Romero is able to get his point across, while hoping to make a difference to someone. He may not have done all the things that Truman did, but he made a difference to these people in his town. He wanted to help, because that was the type of person he was. This made him an even more admirable man to people in his community, however this didn't get to him and he definitely continued to help others. Therefore, he could definitely be seen as a hero in the story by helping people through words, instead of violence.

Blog Entry #1

In this writing, Turgenev portrays capital punishment as unnecessary and completely wrong. He shows the readers how dramatic the viewing of the execution was in full detail. Once Turgenev received the invitation to the execution, he had no idea what was in store for him and didn't want to seem like a coward. Throughout the entire execution, Turgenev felt remorse toward Tropmann, who was "guilty" of murder and sentenced to execution. Turgenev is stunned to see how many people came to view the execution and how much entertainment the community got out of the young man being killed. Turgenev is disgusted by seeing how a community could get so much joy out of another person's death. Turgenev wrote this to show how much of an emotional journey this was for him and to show others how shocked he was at others for getting joy out of the horrific thing that was taking place. Turgenev goes into so much detail of what being there felt like to him, and comparing the sound of the execution itself to the sound of "crashing waves". By doing so, it gives the reader a sense of almost being there and experiencing exactly what he experienced. Turgenev did this in order to spare readers the experience of actually going to watch one of these terrible things. He basically scares readers and shows them that you get nothing out of experiencing a man be killed, unless you're sick in the head. At the end of the piece, Turgenev asks, "capital punishment itself -- could it possibly be justified?" By asking this, readers see that he is against capital punishment. By asking if capital punishment could be justified, it shows that his position is that it can't be justified at all, and if so, he doesn't see how. Some may disagree and say that capital punishment is completely justified and feel that people that commit crimes, such as murder, should go through exactly what they put others through. My question is, how would this teach someone a lesson? By killing someone for killing someone else, this basically shows that the government feels that it's alright to commit murder because that's exactly what they're doing by sentencing someone to execution. If killing someone is illegal, then why can the government kill someone for doing something illegal? Execution is extremely barbaric and disgusting to me. I feel that being sentenced to "life in prison" is way more humane than sentencing someone to execution. Life in prison keeps the people the government wants away from society, away from society, without killing them or anything crazy. Execution is an extremely touchy subject and could be argued for years because everyone has their own opinion and in the end, everyone has a different opinion on these kinds of things.