America has become accustomed to the “flashy” things in life. The goals are to be richer, have the most cars, have the biggest house, and own the nicest possessions. Many argue that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the rich only give money to the poor every now and then to appease a growing animosity towards the elites. Even so, they are still doing something, right? Extravagance is the key word. More, More, More. Bigger, Bigger, Bigger. These are the obsessions of America. These have always been the obsessions of America, as it grew its fledgling self to a superpower force to be reckoned with. It had to make a name, and there have certainly been ways it has done so.
That’s where the Chicago World’s Fair comes into play.
It would be the exposition to top all expositions. It would beat out France. It would host only the finest exhibits, and only the most advanced ideas to get Americans to notice; to get the world to notice. It was “that marvel of late nineteenth-century hubris, enclosing the greatest volume of unobstructed space in history.” It was certainly, without a doubt, an exhibition of arrogance, with its extravagant size and cost.
Daniel Burnham set out to find only the finest things for the fair. He had decided it needed something of great stature, something to outdo the Eiffel Tower that was brought in for the Paris Exposition. He knew he had to “out-Eiffel Eiffel.” Here, at the Chicago World’s Fair, the Ferris Wheel was born, along with the launch of a newfound materialism and gregarious competition for attention.
All throughout the fair, arrogance was noted. Buildings set up by different countries or states were adamant to be the largest or most ornate of all of the buildings. They aimed to stand apart from the others, creating even a rivalry amongst states in America as well.
Chicago took aim at a high bar to not be the city known for its austere feeling, smoke and dirtiness, and instead found refuge in colorful buildings, welcoming tourists and money.
I believe that in many creative and arrogant endeavors such as the creation of the Chicago World’s Fair (or the World’s Colombian Exposition) it will automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel. With creative minds, come creative solutions, and more often than not, manipulation and greed. The “White City,” white being the symbol of purity and class, had a dark history. Men died during the building of the fair, “savages” were put on display, left for fair-goers to gawk at and dehumanize as though they were at a zoo. The fair, and all that the planners wanted it to be, carried with it danger and tediousness that could only be described as a darkness. Its large size brought in millions of visitors, and even the most notorious at that. H.H. Holmes brought his Dark Castle to the 63rd Chicago block, fully aware of the influx of people that were going to arrive because of the fair. With concentration on such a large event, police and media were distracted, giving Holmes the perfect opportunity to murder and torture with the newly arriving women that journeyed to Chicago for a glimpse at the extravagance and arrogance of the fair.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
"No, don't open that door!"
“I was born with the devil in me. I could not help the fact that I was a murderer, no more than the poet can help the inspiration to sing.”
-H.H. Holmes
“Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.” 
-Daniel H. Burnham
Two quotes, from two seemingly very different men. The novel “Devil in the White City” by Erik Larson juxtaposes the lives of these two unlike men, which takes readers on a journey through the 1800s, but most importantly, the planning and construction of the Chicago World’s Fair, or Colombian Exposition, and the orchestration of a bone-chilling scheme by a murderous mind. On the surface, the plot seems to be a non-fictitious memoir of an architect, Daniel Burnham, and a charming serial killer, H. H. Holmes. However, it reveals an in-depth analysis of the “ineluctable conflict between good and evil” and the perhaps dark, inner-workings of two brilliant men, no matter how terrifying they might be.
Throughout this novel, there is a stark contrast of good and evil, or “the ineluctable conflict between good and evil," if you may. One of the most significant, and blatant conflicts of dark and light, good and evil, is the layout of the book itself. It roughly alternates chapters of Burnham and Holmes; examining the planning and constructing of the Colombian exposition to appease the world in the view of Daniel Burnham and; examining the construction of a murderous castle and murderous personality by H.H. Holmes. Various symbolic notions appeared throughout the book, such as the contrast of the very gloomy, plain, and dark, street taken up by Holmes’ castle and the Chicago streets around it that were bright and full of life.
The book also shows a conflicting good and evil within the men themselves. Burnham set out to be the head architect of the Chicago World’s Fair, an attraction to bring happiness to fair-goers; however the journey there becomes tedious and difficult. Burnham struggles to keep his head on tight, cycling through follies, disasters, and the looming darkness that contributes to the recipe for the expo. Every day, Burnham saw men dying from the building process, and felt extreme pressure in finding someone who could “out-Eiffel Eiffel.” Yet, his vision of an amazing expo still stood through all of the dust and dark. Furthermore, the color that was decided on to paint the city was white, a symbol of purity and innocence. It is the color of light that would set the city apart from all of the rest.
Holmes also had slight displays of confliction, although it was all a ruse and he was a phony. When he was hiding his wickedness, he made women swoon, and spoke so eloquently that anyone could be persuaded into what he wanted. He could pick up a baby and hush it from crying in a matter of seconds. It was the side of Holmes that kept him out of public perception and out of the radar of the police. However, his dark side was that of a monstrous, but brilliant craft.
Burnham and Holmes possessed many differences, but surprisingly, they also had some similarities. Both men were brilliant. Both men wanted to create something that had never been orchestrated before, something that would be remembered by everyone. Both men were constructors of a revolutionary project. Both men were both destined to go down in history as the playmakers of something new, even if it may be a terrible feat.
Not to mention.. look at those moustaches.
-Daniel H. Burnham
Two quotes, from two seemingly very different men. The novel “Devil in the White City” by Erik Larson juxtaposes the lives of these two unlike men, which takes readers on a journey through the 1800s, but most importantly, the planning and construction of the Chicago World’s Fair, or Colombian Exposition, and the orchestration of a bone-chilling scheme by a murderous mind. On the surface, the plot seems to be a non-fictitious memoir of an architect, Daniel Burnham, and a charming serial killer, H. H. Holmes. However, it reveals an in-depth analysis of the “ineluctable conflict between good and evil” and the perhaps dark, inner-workings of two brilliant men, no matter how terrifying they might be.
Throughout this novel, there is a stark contrast of good and evil, or “the ineluctable conflict between good and evil," if you may. One of the most significant, and blatant conflicts of dark and light, good and evil, is the layout of the book itself. It roughly alternates chapters of Burnham and Holmes; examining the planning and constructing of the Colombian exposition to appease the world in the view of Daniel Burnham and; examining the construction of a murderous castle and murderous personality by H.H. Holmes. Various symbolic notions appeared throughout the book, such as the contrast of the very gloomy, plain, and dark, street taken up by Holmes’ castle and the Chicago streets around it that were bright and full of life.
The book also shows a conflicting good and evil within the men themselves. Burnham set out to be the head architect of the Chicago World’s Fair, an attraction to bring happiness to fair-goers; however the journey there becomes tedious and difficult. Burnham struggles to keep his head on tight, cycling through follies, disasters, and the looming darkness that contributes to the recipe for the expo. Every day, Burnham saw men dying from the building process, and felt extreme pressure in finding someone who could “out-Eiffel Eiffel.” Yet, his vision of an amazing expo still stood through all of the dust and dark. Furthermore, the color that was decided on to paint the city was white, a symbol of purity and innocence. It is the color of light that would set the city apart from all of the rest.
Holmes also had slight displays of confliction, although it was all a ruse and he was a phony. When he was hiding his wickedness, he made women swoon, and spoke so eloquently that anyone could be persuaded into what he wanted. He could pick up a baby and hush it from crying in a matter of seconds. It was the side of Holmes that kept him out of public perception and out of the radar of the police. However, his dark side was that of a monstrous, but brilliant craft.
Burnham and Holmes possessed many differences, but surprisingly, they also had some similarities. Both men were brilliant. Both men wanted to create something that had never been orchestrated before, something that would be remembered by everyone. Both men were constructors of a revolutionary project. Both men were both destined to go down in history as the playmakers of something new, even if it may be a terrible feat.
Not to mention.. look at those moustaches.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Tuesday Night, Kids Eat Free!
The essay, “A Modest Proposal” by Dr. Jonathon Swift was a satirically written piece, mocking the attitudes of society directed towards the impoverished people of Ireland. It also criticized the unhelpfulness of the government to alleviate the situation.
Swift’s idea to relieve the poor of their economic problems is to sell the babies and children to use them as food and in various other crafts. The very first glimpse readers get at Swift’s outrageous suggestion is when he says “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.” It is at this point where readers first begin to analyze his crazy suggestion.
When I first started reading Dr. Swift’s essay, I wasn’t too drawn in to it. However, as I continued reading, I was extremely intrigued. I was reading about his ideas about the babies and I was somewhat confused. Of course, it seemed like a ludicrous idea, and I wasn’t familiar with any of Dr. Swift’s previous work, but his argument was so incredibly detailed that I couldn’t help but feel there were some serious undertones! I then thought to myself however, that we were learning about satire, so I kind of figured there was no way it could be real.
One of the ways Dr. Swift makes his argument completely real is that he takes a real situation and problem, and makes it clear to the readers that there is such a problem existing in the first place. He uses precise measurements and facts that make it seem like he did a lot of research, and although his outrageous concept can’t be taken seriously, his argument can.
Swift uses language to dehumanize the Irish people. In one paragraph he says the “wives are breeders” and speaks of them in an animalistic way. He mentions it over and over again how they are breeders; in example, “a hundred and seventy breeders.” At one point, he talks about how the children are purely profit and speaks of how the mothers are used only to produce the profit by saying, “be fit for work till she produces another child.”
Swift brings attention to the poor people and children of Ireland. He makes it clear that something needs to be done. There’s no real solution so far, but he uses satire to mock the problems and the fact that there are no real solutions being presented by the government to fix the economic situation that existed. On the last page, he starts to reveal to readers his sympathy and how he has “not the least personal interest in endeavoring.” One can recognize his seriousness when he actually speaks of the real issues, he just exaggerates it greatly.
It’s somewhat peculiar because there is actually one part that seems to be one of the only completely serious concepts throughout the entire essay. Swift says, “There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! Too frequent among us, sacrificing poor innocent babes, I doubt, more to avoid the expence than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.”
I definitely think this type of essay works to spark a necessary debate or action from the readers of such a piece because its extremity draws the readers in, and while maybe not being a logical solution to the economic problem, it alarms readers to the problem in the first place. It catches the readers eye and while it is a ludicrous solution, it makes them think, “Huh, well there is a problem here, what can I do to solve it?” It is a clever way to present a problem without outright saying there is a problem, which I think intrigues readers even more.
I enjoyed reading the essay because it was well-written and presented a problem with such a crazy solution. Dr. Swift’s complete emotional detachment really brought the essay to life, with a cynical outlook. However, the irony is that there really is an emotional attachment because his point is to help the poor people of Ireland. He is an excellent writer in the sense that he created a completely different character in his own narrative, which helped convey the point he wanted to get across, which I think he did successfully.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Who Put the "Glad" in Gladiator?
Throughout the novel “The Sun Also Rises” by Ernest Hemingway, the characters struggled to find themselves and their happiness, even taking a journey to reveal the qualities they possess. Hemingway describes a hero as one who exhibits “grace under pressure” while also being confident and brave.
Jake, the protagonist of the novel, finds himself travelling to Spain, a place much different from that of the cold, industrial Paris, France the gang was living in before.
While in Spain, Jake, Brett, Michael, Bill, and Cohn meet the very talented bull fighter, Pedro Romero. At the tender age of nineteen, Romero is described by Jake as a strong, good-looking man, with an angular face and confidence that exudes throughout.
It soon became apparent that Romero is the true “Hemingway Hero” of the novel. As a bullfighter, Romero constantly faced death and danger. He was graceful and confident, but showed humility. Romero was a stickler for tradition as well. Bullfighting came easily to him as he performed under pressure with swift movements and was the best at what he did.
Romero was a character who was loved by all. Men wanted to be him and women wanted him. He was seen as more of a man for doing what he did, while Jake viewed himself as less of a man both physically and emotionally despite his going to war. Jake was maimed after the war and lost a body part that allowed him “to perform.” This definitely scarred him, and made him feel like less of a man, especially while still vying for Brett’s love. Romero wooed Brett and was seen as more of man who could satisfy Brett’s sexuality, something Jake could never do for her.
Heroes have evolved over time. Personally, the first thing I think of as a “hero” is Hercules. He was the strong, charismatic guy who was always there to save the day. He faced danger every day, he saved the damsels in distress, and he did it all with a smile. Or at least that’s how Disney portrayed him!
Of course, this isn’t a practical hero. Today, heroes exist in the most unsuspecting manifestations. I think many would consider heroes as the soldiers who fight in the wars that our country endures, or the firemen who are constantly ready to be on-call, around the clock. A hero could be the policemen that strive to keep our cities safe. I don’t think a hero has a gender or age either.
Depending on how one decides to look at it, a hero could be a little girl, struggling with a life-threatening illness, or a single-mother who raises her baby, eventually sending them to college with the little money she has. A hero could be scientist who discovers a cure for previously incurable disease.
Today, I think heroes have a different definition. Today, heroes aren’t necessarily all about the brawns and the danger. Heroes are the people who are an inspiration, the ones who make a difference for the better, even if it is a minute change. Heroes aren’t all about saving people in the literal sense, although there are many people that could be accredited to “saving” someone’s life, like someone who saw a loved one in need of guidance.
I don’t think heroes necessarily need glorification or recognition for their deeds because the definition today constitutes humbleness and it goes out to all the daily-do-gooders. Heroes are more common, but that could be a good thing. If everyone is striving to do-good, then what’s the problem in that? Sure, there aren’t exactly the standard heroes from the old days, like the cowboys who cleared the town of the bad guy, or the Greek heroes who roved the world for a prophesied destiny. Heroes don’t need to come with a cape and superpowers because heroes are all around. Whether they’re wearing a business suit, carrying a teddy bear, putting on their orthopedic shoes, or getting the hose out to distinguish a fire, heroes are everyday people, and if heroes are common, good deeds are too.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Blog #15: I've Got a Secret, Can You Keep It?..
In the essay "What Secrets Tell" by Luc Sante, he discusses why secrecy does not always remain as such for three different reasons.
1. World Phenomenons can give way to other mysteries being solved by the release of one secret.
As one secret is uncovered, it creates for a domino effect where more secrets continue to be uncovered as well.
2. The Internet.
People all the time are updating their statuses and fact sheets online. It may seem harmless but it also allows others to become more and more intertwined with someone's personal life, especially when one single secret being posted can be seen by billions.
3. People can't keep secrets.
It's not a secret that people can't keep secrets. According to Sante, it is American culture to want to share "personal hidden transgressions." Sometimes people are hoping for forgiveness and sometimes it's just about entertainment.
As for the idea that the Internet is a "nemesis" to secrecy, I would have to say I agree. It seems as if people are becoming more and more reckless with the personal information they post online. However, I cannot determine whether or not this is just with my age group, or those older as well. With personal networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter, it is easier to publish your every move, thought, and plan for millions of people to know. Lately, the site Formspring has come to the public light, an anonymous question posting, or in most cases, smack talking arena. It is pretty interesting some of the things you'll find out, just by looking over the internet.
1. World Phenomenons can give way to other mysteries being solved by the release of one secret.
As one secret is uncovered, it creates for a domino effect where more secrets continue to be uncovered as well.
2. The Internet.
People all the time are updating their statuses and fact sheets online. It may seem harmless but it also allows others to become more and more intertwined with someone's personal life, especially when one single secret being posted can be seen by billions.
3. People can't keep secrets.
It's not a secret that people can't keep secrets. According to Sante, it is American culture to want to share "personal hidden transgressions." Sometimes people are hoping for forgiveness and sometimes it's just about entertainment.
As for the idea that the Internet is a "nemesis" to secrecy, I would have to say I agree. It seems as if people are becoming more and more reckless with the personal information they post online. However, I cannot determine whether or not this is just with my age group, or those older as well. With personal networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter, it is easier to publish your every move, thought, and plan for millions of people to know. Lately, the site Formspring has come to the public light, an anonymous question posting, or in most cases, smack talking arena. It is pretty interesting some of the things you'll find out, just by looking over the internet.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Blog #14: All's Fair in Morality and Ethics?
Should public schools teach students ethics and personal values?
This is a tricky subject.
On one hand, students spend a good amount of time at school throughout their life, starting since being tiny little munchkins, making school an ideal place to teach things such as ethics. However, ethics and personal values are just that--personal. What one might think is ethical, another may not. What one may take to be a personal value, another may not. Furthermore, this could end up encroaching on religious rights as well because certain personal values and ethics are focused on according to one's religious beliefs.
In a way, certain ethics and personal values are being taught to students already. For example, don't cheat, treat others with respect, hold yourself to certain standards, and thinking ahead for the future can all be considered ethics and personal values, and I think this is enough for public schools to be teaching.
Do I think public schools should specifically educate students on ethics? No. There are already enough things students must be taught throughout the day, and it is not the school's place to educate students on things that do not pertain to academics by taking time out of the day to do so. By awaring students that cheating is not okay, and other lessons such as that, it should suffice.
This is a tricky subject.
On one hand, students spend a good amount of time at school throughout their life, starting since being tiny little munchkins, making school an ideal place to teach things such as ethics. However, ethics and personal values are just that--personal. What one might think is ethical, another may not. What one may take to be a personal value, another may not. Furthermore, this could end up encroaching on religious rights as well because certain personal values and ethics are focused on according to one's religious beliefs.
In a way, certain ethics and personal values are being taught to students already. For example, don't cheat, treat others with respect, hold yourself to certain standards, and thinking ahead for the future can all be considered ethics and personal values, and I think this is enough for public schools to be teaching.
Do I think public schools should specifically educate students on ethics? No. There are already enough things students must be taught throughout the day, and it is not the school's place to educate students on things that do not pertain to academics by taking time out of the day to do so. By awaring students that cheating is not okay, and other lessons such as that, it should suffice.
Blog #13: Action! Cut!
When categorizing movies, I'm sure there are billions of ways one could go about this. My take is simple, but the sub-categories are more in depth. First, I would organize by a simple genre outline: Romance, Horror, Comedy and Action. Sure, there are many more genre categories, but these seem to be the most generic and common of genres.
The Romance Category.
Ah, the infamous "chick flicks." These are the movies that can make you laugh, cry, and want to squeal with happiness, or make your chest explode from the frustration of the outcome. Usually the romance movies follow the same simple formula: there are two main characters (boy and girl), these characters meet (sometimes in a very unusual way), fun and quirky dates happen in between, the two fall in love, something happens where the girl gets upset at the boy and the boy has to do something to show his undying love for her, thus in turn re-wooing the girl and they live happily ever after, or so we assume because the movie ends here.
The formula can stray some, but by following these simple steps: Voila! You have romance!
The Horror Category.
I am not much of a horror/scary movie fan. After months of nightmares from watching one scary movie as a child, it can really traumatize you! However, the horror category gives a lot of leeway for what really constitutes it as, well--a horror movie. Sometimes there is lots of blood and gore. This is the slasher film. There is usually a psychopath wielding a household appliance or tool of some sort, such as a chainsaw or a meat cleaver. In this, one can usually pin-point who will survive as normally only one or two people do, these being the main characters. There are also the ghost scary movies. There is an angry spector who wants their revenge, yada yada, kills all who inhabit its former home or takes revenge on those who had some sort of connection with the ghost. Again, usually one or two people survive in these movies. There are many other types of horror films, but just remember, if you jump from being scared, can't sleep at night from the thought of a masked man taking his revenge on those who teased him, cringed at the sight of the blood gushing out of the poor victim's arteries, then you have just seen a horror film. :)
The Comedy.
The comedy category is extremely simple: if you find yourself laughing at least every five minutes, it's a comedy. If your abs hurt because you were cracking up so hard, it's a comedy. If the idea is just so stupid or absurd that you couldn't help but giggle, it's a comedy. Comedies can also cross over into being romantic-comedies, or even can become dark as a horror-comedy (however, these are hard to execute brilliantly: see Zombieland--great film!)
The Action.
Action movies have the same formula as well. And with this, you know the good guys always win. It doesn't matter, even if you think the bad guy has taken the cake and the movie has only 15 minutes left, the hero will swoop in and win. First, there is the main character and he (or they) have to defeat an evil villain or a regular man with a dark past and a bone to pick with the hero. Sometimes the main characters will be ostracized or put in a bad light, only to come back to clear their name and take down their nemesis. Action films usually consist of at least one good fight scene, mostly executed with hand-to-hand combat. There are usually explosions of some sort, guns, and a creepy bad guy who you just want to punch in the face yourself!
The Romance Category.
Ah, the infamous "chick flicks." These are the movies that can make you laugh, cry, and want to squeal with happiness, or make your chest explode from the frustration of the outcome. Usually the romance movies follow the same simple formula: there are two main characters (boy and girl), these characters meet (sometimes in a very unusual way), fun and quirky dates happen in between, the two fall in love, something happens where the girl gets upset at the boy and the boy has to do something to show his undying love for her, thus in turn re-wooing the girl and they live happily ever after, or so we assume because the movie ends here.
The formula can stray some, but by following these simple steps: Voila! You have romance!
The Horror Category.
I am not much of a horror/scary movie fan. After months of nightmares from watching one scary movie as a child, it can really traumatize you! However, the horror category gives a lot of leeway for what really constitutes it as, well--a horror movie. Sometimes there is lots of blood and gore. This is the slasher film. There is usually a psychopath wielding a household appliance or tool of some sort, such as a chainsaw or a meat cleaver. In this, one can usually pin-point who will survive as normally only one or two people do, these being the main characters. There are also the ghost scary movies. There is an angry spector who wants their revenge, yada yada, kills all who inhabit its former home or takes revenge on those who had some sort of connection with the ghost. Again, usually one or two people survive in these movies. There are many other types of horror films, but just remember, if you jump from being scared, can't sleep at night from the thought of a masked man taking his revenge on those who teased him, cringed at the sight of the blood gushing out of the poor victim's arteries, then you have just seen a horror film. :)
The Comedy.
The comedy category is extremely simple: if you find yourself laughing at least every five minutes, it's a comedy. If your abs hurt because you were cracking up so hard, it's a comedy. If the idea is just so stupid or absurd that you couldn't help but giggle, it's a comedy. Comedies can also cross over into being romantic-comedies, or even can become dark as a horror-comedy (however, these are hard to execute brilliantly: see Zombieland--great film!)
The Action.
Action movies have the same formula as well. And with this, you know the good guys always win. It doesn't matter, even if you think the bad guy has taken the cake and the movie has only 15 minutes left, the hero will swoop in and win. First, there is the main character and he (or they) have to defeat an evil villain or a regular man with a dark past and a bone to pick with the hero. Sometimes the main characters will be ostracized or put in a bad light, only to come back to clear their name and take down their nemesis. Action films usually consist of at least one good fight scene, mostly executed with hand-to-hand combat. There are usually explosions of some sort, guns, and a creepy bad guy who you just want to punch in the face yourself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)