America's Arrogance?

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?

America is known for its flashiness and extravagance. We want to be the biggest, fastest, and baddest nation around. One event in history that displays this greater than many others: The Worlds Fair. Set up in Chicago in the short amount of 3 years, this magnificent city showed the tenacity and audacity that America had. It contained glorious buildings like the Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building, and contained amazing contraptions that had never been seen anywhere in the world before. The Ferris Wheel was America’s way of “Out Eiffelling Eiffell” and shows that the fair was built to maintain the nations pride, rather than solely taunt others arrogantly. However, the fairs denial to implement a cost limit or resource limit shows the real motive behind the fair. This was America’s chance to show the world that it was the greatest nation, and by far. It was not meant to match other countries, it was meant to outdo them.

When something this creative is created then of course it engenders darker parallel. In this case Mr Holmes could be considered that parallel. In the broader scope that seems to be a relevant statement to many things. The United States, with all its intellectual, creative, and athletic potential and ability is matched by its criminal activity. That seemed to be a big theme in the book, where the greatness of the fair is the spotlight, but in the background there was always that criminal presence and history with Holmes. The display put on by America’s extravagant world fair was not solely arrogance, but was also the pride that this nation is known for. Throughout the course of the book, Burnham emphasizes that he wants to do it not only for Chicago, but for the United States as well. The idea of “out Eiffelling Eiffel” sounds like pure arrogance but I believe is a more prideful motive. As a nation that came from nothing, it is amazing that we came to such a prominent role in the late 19^th century. To celebrate such an accomplishment the World Fair was necessary. It was not just a way to celebrate, but a way to prove that America deserved to be one of the leading nations in the world. America still remains the arrogant nation to others and prideful nation to itself, but I believe this is justifiable. Other nations had their world fairs and although they were not as grand as the one held in Chicago, Im guessing they were just as expensive and time consuming. The world we live in is one based on material possessions and physical beauty. In order to fit in, one must appeal to both those criteria. The Worlds fair was simply America’s way of fitting in, whether it was pure arrogance or patriotic pride is determined by one’s point of view.

Evils Imminent Reflection

Extended Reflection Journal (BLOG) : 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?

Before Larson begins his story, he gives this note about the "evils imminent" during a time like the late 1800s chicago. There are contrasts all throughout the book, and even the title offers its own contrasts in the words it uses. The Devil usually resonates a bad connotation, as he represents evil and sin, while the White City immediately gives the feeling of cleanliness or purity. The book displays conflict between these good and evil contrasts by showcasing the men Daniel Burnham and H H Holmes. Burnham, the good, is focused on “engaging the impossible” and giving everything he has for this Worlds Fair. Throughout the book Burnham faces extremely challenging obstacles as the book progresses through Part 1. He is given the opportunity to create the greatest event in history and he wants to prove that he can handle the responsibility, not just for the U.S., but to prove Chicago is worthy of such an honor. Holmes, the bad, is engaged in the “manufacture of sorrow” and goes on his killing spree by leading his victims to his hotel. Holmes is able to build his own Worlds Fair Hotel, and uses his incredible charm and good looks to manipulate the young women visiting Chicago to view the Worlds Fair. By fending off police and creditors, Holmes was able to go on the first serial killing spree. From the surface it may seem like Holmes is a madman, but his charm and the creepiness of his murders is so engaging it makes you wonder if he really is as evil as he seems. The “ineluctable conflict” here is apparent, as even though these men seem to have nothing to do with each other, they are both connected by their passions. Oddly enough, they are both blue eyed and passionate. Burnham is passionate about architecture, which in the end produces The Worlds Fair, one of the grandest events in history. Holmes passion for killing leads him to create his hotel during this Worlds Fair and manages to pursue his passion discreetly. Even though they never meet formally, the conflict between good and evil is unavoidable. Their fates were intertwined, as shown in the book. However they represent more than just an architect and a murderer. Burnham shows the fight and spirit that America has to always be the best, and by managing to build the fair shows his determination and will, and the will of America as a nation. Holmes shows the contrast to that: the seedy underbelly of America that we are unwilling to confess openly, but we allow to take place anyway. So although they are very different men, they are alike since they both represent aspects of the gilded-age and even modern America, and are both passionate about their work.