What is the purpose of the blog?
This blog was created to assist you in your "free choice" book discussions, but it can develop into a forum to answer questions, exchange ideas, and extend classroom discussions.
I have not yet gotten very far on the book so maybe this will just be answered latter on but I am still going to through this out there. At the beggining of the book it said that there was a machine that was first rejected as a "monstrosity" but then became the fair's emblem, does anyone have an idea what that machine was?
Caleb, I am also reading The Devil in the White City and I passed the point where the author first begins to explain Burnham’s view of the importance of the Seal and, at first, I had absolutely no idea what the “machine” was. I was getting increasingly frustrated as I searched online for the answer to your question and I think I may have found it. I believe that the structure, “rejected at first as a ‘monstrosity,’ became the fair’s emblem, a machine so huge and terrifying that it instantly eclipsed the tower of Alexandre Eiffel that had so wounded America’s pride”, is the Ferris Wheel (Larson, 5). The Ferris Wheel was “an engineering marvel, constructed and first used at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893. It was designed to rival the Eiffel Tower offered by the French at the 1889 fair. The wheel took twenty minutes per revolution with thirty-six cars holding sixty passengers each,” (http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/wf-site/index.html). Hopefully this answers your question, and I apologize if I am wrong…Other than that slight confusion, how do you like the book so far? I think it is a little dry at times but, for the most part, it is so rich with history it is fascinating. I had never even heard of the World’s Fair in Chicago, or in any other city for that matter, nor had I heard of the White City prior to reading this novel and I am finding myself more and more interested. My ignorance is a little disappointing since this must have had a huge influence on our culture and on our position in the world as Americans. Just the idea of creating an entire city so vast in such a short time span is overwhelming. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like to be there and to be an innocent bystander watching it being built from the ground up. Imagine what it must have been like for Burnham and Root? I had also never heard of the mass-murderer Dr. H. H. Holmes, which adds to my ignorance. I have to admit that I find the quote in the beginning of the novel, before the prologue, chilling: “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.” Dr. Holmes' blatant honesty about his view on the world, and also on himself as a thief of the lives of others, is a little frightening. It opens a door into his twisted mind, a door that most people would agree is better off unopened. Just as I find his quote to be disturbing and unsettling, I find this quote, by Daniel H. Burnham and also found at the beginning of the novel, before the prologue, as encouraging as Dr. H. H. Holmes’ was unnerving: “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.”
You didn't have to search online. The author likes to lead you on into the story before giving away what he's talking about. "Cryptic" about sums it up. I finished the book and found it to be very interesting. The author (Larson) manages to be very widespread in his analysis of not just the fair but of the gilded age itself, ranging from the fair's construction to the pledge of allegiance. Holmes' character was chilling and incredibly captivating, since we rarely have insight into the minds of psychopaths. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book was not even the book at all but it's pulling together of all the threads that the fair strung throughout the world. Very historically based, very well researched, very interesting.
I am intrigued by the description of Chicago during this time. It is depicted as so gruesome and foul yet americans accepted the slaughterhouses and smoke mentioned in Upton Sinclairs THE JUNGLE as a charcteristic and even embraced this quality, were proud of it. Just another exmaple of the how the relationship between man and nature has changed so completly.
In response to Lucy, I think that the captivating aspect of Chicago was very shock and awe. It's like the fact that in the novel, Holmes takes some women (later victims) to a tour of a slaughterhouse, and they're oddly interested in it. I'm going to read The Jungle to get a better grasp of the situation.
Hey, Clancy so you and me up for a blog-fest this weekend? I hope you are feeling better. Ok, so back on track. What do you think about The Devil in the White City so far. I have not had time to finish it yet, so please don't let on to too much of the ending story plot/twist if you have read father then page 218. I will be back on in a few hours and maybe you will have had time to get back to me.
To Clancy, How do you feel about Erik Larson's use of foreshadowing to build the readers anticipations for what is next to come? Personally I love how Larson begins with an apparently simple person or event and then, first discreetly and eventually directly, reveals the true and twisting contribution they/it makes toward the darker tale of the Worlds Fair. The father I read, the more the book entices me to keep going forward. Last night in bed I kept thinking,"just one more page and then I can put it down." Eventually I reached the middle of one of the architecture chapters and decided to give it a rest. So Clancy, if you are still reading this, what do you think?
To Kimmy Hey dearie sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you; I’m only just now getting better (thankfully…I couldn’t take another day of that). Anyways, I totally agree with you on how Larson pulls you in and develops his characters from simple mentions to in-depth descriptions. I really feel like I can connect to these characters (not because I’m an architect or a psychopath-not to my knowledge anyway- but because of Larson’s descriptive diction). When he describes Holmes for instance; “He walked with confidence and dressed well, conjuring an impression of wealth and confidence…he had dark hair and striking blue eyes, once likened to the eyes of a Mesmerist.” While he goes on to describe Holmes in further detail, I mainly became focused upon his eyes. I’ve always thought blue eyes to be striking so throughout this entire book whenever I imagine Holmes, his “Mesmerist” eyes are always the clearest image.
Another thing I really liked about this book was Larson’s usage of quotes. It greatly helps appeal to Ethos knowing that “anything between quotation marks comes from a letter, memoir, or other written document.” I would have to say that my two favorite quotes are the two at the very beginning of the book from Burnham and Holmes. “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.” I find this quote to be very inspirational and true; the motivation of men often comes from a grand and elaborate scheme. Designing the fair, we can only imagine the intensity of the emotions of which the architects, as well as the rest of the world, must have felt. The second quote, one made by Holmes, provides a foreshadowing for his gruesome actions later on. “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.” The most chilling aspect of this quote for me is that I can imagine Holmes sitting in prison, speaking calmly-almost nonchalantly- to reporters, recalling his actions without a hint of emotion. He maintains an air of cool collectedness throughout the book, one of the very first hints at his psychopathic behavior. His “Mask of Sanity” allowed him to blend into the smoke and darkness of Chicago, his perfect reproduction of “a whole and normal man” so believable that Holmes even was able to appease and soothe away any possible questions people had concerning him. It’s completely horrifying to think that society can produce and then nourish such evils, and even more terrifying to know that they still lurk within the shadows of even our “white cities.”
Of all the architects involved in the building process of the fair, i find Olmstead the most interesting. To me his task is the greatest and truly the most powerful; manipulating the land as an art?! His job is a perfect example of how Americans have developed in believing that the land can and should be altered. Nothing is stable and concrete.
CLANCY...yeah!!! I was hoping you would bring up the Larson's use of quotes. Thank you. You noted that by using actual excerpts from writings done by the books real life characters Larson appeals to Ethos. I agree that this tactic lends the author a huge amount of credibility and reinforces that the dark and shocking aspects of the piece are not merely the creations of an imaginative storyteller, but are real parts of America's history.
To Lucy I totally agree with you; Olmsted is definately the most interesting of the architects, and also possibly the most entertaining. I can totally picture an old man with glasses that magnify his eyes to outrageous proportions; someone who's completely brilliant but slightly off his rocker :P His task of manipulating and landscaping the grounds also reminds me of Wendel Berry's idea that we no longer live surrounded by nature, but that nature lives surrounded by us. The difficulty of working with the land and problems the architects encountered while building made me imagine that nature was trying to put up a fight against man's attempts to overpower it yet again.
Kimmy! I know, it still shocks me to think that everything in the book is true. Despite the quotes and the author's assurances that the events are completely true, I still found myself wishing and wanting to believe that it wasn't. I dont know if you already read my comment to Lucy but I felt like the hardships of the architects when it came to building the fair, or anything in Chicago, were in a way nature's struggle to reclaim its freedom from man's need for dominance over his surroundings. What do you think?
Ok, so continuing with our earlier discussion of Larson's use of quotes, the most striking effect on the books development for me are the excerpts directly from Mudgett aka, Holmes's memoir. Holmes's personal writings are scattered throughout the book, but the part that originally sparked my interest was Larson's first use of these back in Part I, "The Necessary Supply". After the excerpts from Holmes's memoir, Larson clarifies that the sections recently described scenes were far from the innocent childhood experiences that Holmes described. In reality, "he was sitting in a prison cell hoping to engineer a swell of public sympathy"by somehow showing his human side, albeit manufactured. Larson contrasts Holmes's writing with his own dissection of the psychopath's character. The author's own analysis reveals the true and chilling side of Holmes that lay hidden behind the "pale blue emptiness" of his eyes. This more than any other technique used by Larson, develops Holmes's character in my mind as the cold, deceitful, and twisted man that he was.
Wow Clancy, slow down. I just read your last question, and wow that was loaded. Actually, I had not considered that idea until you just mentioned it. So, "nature's struggle to reclaim its freedom from man's need for dominance over his surroundings"...I can see it. My first thoughts on your comment went back to the one of the first chapters that discusses how Burnham and Root had to figure out a new way to lay the Montauk's foundation. This was the first of their many "tallest office building yet constructed in Chicago" that the partners would work on. Needless to say they solved the foundation problem, despite the "natural" difficulties presented by the moist soil. So back to your original question. I suppose in this situation, the most obvious response is also the opposite. It can also be said that it illustrates man's struggle to claim his environmental opportunities from nature's dominance over his surroundings. Personally, I am much more inclined to ponder and support you idea. Lets face it, nature is awesome. Plus, i feel dirty advocating for man's prostitution of natural resources.
Clancy, Your response to Lucy’s opinion on Olmsted as one of the most interesting characters was exactly what I was thinking?! Crazy how we think along the same lines. I’ve always known that landscaping is an art but I have never seen anyone put in so much thought and care as to what a landscape should look like. His interpretation of potted plants and patches of flowers as flashy and inappropriate is brilliant. I have found myself to share the belief that, as an art form, landscape architecture “should strive to conjure effects greater than the mere sum of petals and leaves”. My favorite quote concerning Olmsted and his work on the Fair is, “through the mingling intricately together of many forms of foliage, the alternation and complicated crossing of salient leaves and stalks of varying green tints in high lights with other leaves and stalks, behind and under them, and therefore less defined and more shaded, yet partly illumined by light reflected from the water…flowers to be used for the purpose should have the effect of flecks and glimmers of bright color imperfectly breaking through the general greenery”. His vision is beautiful and it makes me, as the reader, wish that I could have seen his revelation come to life. The immense strain it must have placed upon him, to be the visionary of such a subtly spectacular place, is astounding. Back to what you were saying Clancy, I completely agree with your connection to Wendell Berry’s “An Entrance into the Woods”. I think it was Lucy who said it during our presentation, but this is yet another example of how nature has become an inhabitant in man’s world.
Kimmy and Clancy, I have to agree Kimmy, that Clancy definitely asked a big question. I had never really thought about it (it being nature’s making a stand against man’s need for dominance) that way Clancy, but I have to agree with you. I know it is a little silly to think of nature as a being rather than an all-encompassing word for everything that is natural on earth, but that is the way I view nature. Shifting gears a little bit, but there is a quote from Kingsolver’s novel “The Poisonwood Bible” (yes I know that you underline the titles of books, but it never lets me underline when I move my blog from a Word document to the website) that has always stuck with me. Near the end of the novel she says, “Africa has a thousand ways of cleansing itself. Driver ants, Ebola virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome: all these are brooms devised by nature to sweep a small clearing very well”. I always remember this quote because, while Kingsolver is applying this solely to Africa, I apply it to nature as a whole. In my mind, nature does have thousand ways of healing itself and, going back to your question, I really agree that Chicago’s persistent soil is a branch off of one of those methods. By making itself hard to work with, I think nature was making a stand. I also have to agree with Kimmy’s point of view about how conquering the soil could easily overshadow nature’s stand for independence and support the idea that man has the ability and the steadfast determination to prevail over any obstacle, including those presented by nature. It is a deep question girly and I think the answer is in the eyes of the beholder.
Kimmy, In regards to one of your earlier blogs about Larson’s use of foreshadowing, i completely agree with you when you stated that it builds the readers anticipation for what is next to come but I took a slightly different approach to it. I am one of those people that doesn’t enjoy hearing that I am ignorant to something and so, every time a character or a piece of architecture was mentioned, I felt obligated to Google it. As you might have read, my first blog was a reply to Caleb’s question about the World’s Fair’s emblem. I also did not know what it was and, despite the fact that he had asked, I immediately felt compelled to Google it and find out what it was. As Aaron pointed out, had I just finished the book like a normal person, I would have found out what the emblem was and I also would have been able to appreciate Larson’s “cryptic” writing style. Unfortunately, I am too much of a straightforward person in these terms. I totally agree, however, with how you mentioned that you haven’t been able to put the book down. I’m glad I’m not alone J The author’s descriptive diction and well-researched characters draw the reader in and I find myself incapable of putting it down. “Just one more chapter” has become my motto with this novel.
To Dani and Kimmy Wow guys I definitely did not mean for that thought to be so "deep" haha Going back to The Poisonwood Bible as Dani has, I completely agree with that quote; nature has a way of reclaiming what man has taken from it. We are fighting an uphill battle with nature, each day struggling with the creeping tendrils of nature's resurgance. When I think of nature reclaiming its land, I tend to think of that one scene in Jumanji where the forest takes over their house, massive vines wrapping around the staircase and thick tree trunks twisting up through dining room. Yes, I know this is a complete exaggeration of nature making a stand, but it popped into my head and I figured you would all enjoy it! I know it's bad, but I often found myself torn throughout the book; on the one hand, I wanted Burnham to finish the fair on time, but on the other, I was honestly hoping that the land would prove dominant against man's pestering. I know I should be rooting for team people, but with the careless destruction we have caused through the generations in our quest for dominance, I find myself more and more cheering alongside team nature. Even with the knowledge of our actions upon the earth, we still continue to dig up the land and plant row upon row of track homes. Right in my own backyard, what was once a peaceful grassy hillside is slowly but surely becoming suburbs, complete with golf course. However, even though I was disappointed that nature lost in the end, I was happy that the fair was eventually built. If nothing else, at least Olmsted represented the landscape beautifully through his "mingling intricately together of many forms of foliage;" the effect was surely astonishingly breathtaking. Well I've tried to tie back to the book, because I believe I strayed onto a bit of a tangent for a while there haha. My bad. Anywho...I definitely agree with Dani and Kimmy that this was a compelling book; I found myself mesmerized with each turn of the page and spent many a night laying in bed unable to put it down. Dani I absolutely agree with you; "just one more chapter" definitely became a personal motto for Larson's novel.
Clancy, Wow. Way to not be rooting for the home team. I can’t believe you picked nature over us. It’s like you don’t even love me! I’m just kidding. I totally know where you’re coming from when you say you were hoping nature won the Battle for Jackson Park. Not going to lie, I kind of felt the same way. It is hard to sit back and observe man’s careless destruction of natural beauty. Yes, the World’s Fair turned out to be beautiful but imagine how many beautiful trees were cut down in the process; how the soil was ruined and covered with gravel and forced to uphold heavy buildings; how the lake was once free to rise and fall as it pleased and now is shoved within strict boundaries. It is a sad thought. I also completely agree with your comment about Olmsted. Even though nature “lost” the battle in this instance, at least it was fairly represented. As I mentioned in a previous blog, Olmsted had an amazing eye for creativity and beauty without all the pizzazz. To continue, I know what you mean with the Jamanji connection. A bit of an exaggeration, I will admit, but I know where you were going with it. Great connection by the way. :)
I have not yet gotten very far on the book so maybe this will just be answered latter on but I am still going to through this out there. At the beggining of the book it said that there was a machine that was first rejected as a "monstrosity" but then became the fair's emblem, does anyone have an idea what that machine was?
ReplyDeleteCaleb,
ReplyDeleteI am also reading The Devil in the White City and I passed the point where the author first begins to explain Burnham’s view of the importance of the Seal and, at first, I had absolutely no idea what the “machine” was. I was getting increasingly frustrated as I searched online for the answer to your question and I think I may have found it. I believe that the structure, “rejected at first as a ‘monstrosity,’ became the fair’s emblem, a machine so huge and terrifying that it instantly eclipsed the tower of Alexandre Eiffel that had so wounded America’s pride”, is the Ferris Wheel (Larson, 5). The Ferris Wheel was “an engineering marvel, constructed and first used at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893. It was designed to rival the Eiffel Tower offered by the French at the 1889 fair. The wheel took twenty minutes per revolution with thirty-six cars holding sixty passengers each,” (http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/wf-site/index.html). Hopefully this answers your question, and I apologize if I am wrong…Other than that slight confusion, how do you like the book so far? I think it is a little dry at times but, for the most part, it is so rich with history it is fascinating. I had never even heard of the World’s Fair in Chicago, or in any other city for that matter, nor had I heard of the White City prior to reading this novel and I am finding myself more and more interested. My ignorance is a little disappointing since this must have had a huge influence on our culture and on our position in the world as Americans. Just the idea of creating an entire city so vast in such a short time span is overwhelming. I cannot even imagine what it must have been like to be there and to be an innocent bystander watching it being built from the ground up. Imagine what it must have been like for Burnham and Root? I had also never heard of the mass-murderer Dr. H. H. Holmes, which adds to my ignorance. I have to admit that I find the quote in the beginning of the novel, before the prologue, chilling: “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.” Dr. Holmes' blatant honesty about his view on the world, and also on himself as a thief of the lives of others, is a little frightening. It opens a door into his twisted mind, a door that most people would agree is better off unopened. Just as I find his quote to be disturbing and unsettling, I find this quote, by Daniel H. Burnham and also found at the beginning of the novel, before the prologue, as encouraging as Dr. H. H. Holmes’ was unnerving: “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.”
You didn't have to search online. The author likes to lead you on into the story before giving away what he's talking about. "Cryptic" about sums it up. I finished the book and found it to be very interesting. The author (Larson) manages to be very widespread in his analysis of not just the fair but of the gilded age itself, ranging from the fair's construction to the pledge of allegiance. Holmes' character was chilling and incredibly captivating, since we rarely have insight into the minds of psychopaths. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the book was not even the book at all but it's pulling together of all the threads that the fair strung throughout the world. Very historically based, very well researched, very interesting.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by the description of Chicago during this time. It is depicted as so gruesome and foul yet americans accepted the slaughterhouses and smoke mentioned in Upton Sinclairs THE JUNGLE as a charcteristic and even embraced this quality, were proud of it. Just another exmaple of the how the relationship between man and nature has changed so completly.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lucy, I think that the captivating aspect of Chicago was very shock and awe. It's like the fact that in the novel, Holmes takes some women (later victims) to a tour of a slaughterhouse, and they're oddly interested in it. I'm going to read The Jungle to get a better grasp of the situation.
ReplyDeleteHey, Clancy
ReplyDeleteso you and me up for a blog-fest this weekend? I hope you are feeling better. Ok, so back on track. What do you think about The Devil in the White City so far. I have not had time to finish it yet, so please don't let on to too much of the ending story plot/twist if you have read father then page 218. I will be back on in a few hours and maybe you will have had time to get back to me.
Wow, you must really be sick? I guess that I am going to have to talk to Dani about this one. You know I love you too Dani!
ReplyDeleteTo Clancy,
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel about Erik Larson's use of foreshadowing to build the readers anticipations for what is next to come? Personally I love how Larson begins with an apparently simple person or event and then, first discreetly and eventually directly, reveals the true and twisting contribution they/it makes toward the darker tale of the Worlds Fair. The father I read, the more the book entices me to keep going forward. Last night in bed I kept thinking,"just one more page and then I can put it down." Eventually I reached the middle of one of the architecture chapters and decided to give it a rest. So Clancy, if you are still reading this, what do you think?
To Kimmy
ReplyDeleteHey dearie sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you; I’m only just now getting better (thankfully…I couldn’t take another day of that). Anyways, I totally agree with you on how Larson pulls you in and develops his characters from simple mentions to in-depth descriptions. I really feel like I can connect to these characters (not because I’m an architect or a psychopath-not to my knowledge anyway- but because of Larson’s descriptive diction). When he describes Holmes for instance; “He walked with confidence and dressed well, conjuring an impression of wealth and confidence…he had dark hair and striking blue eyes, once likened to the eyes of a Mesmerist.” While he goes on to describe Holmes in further detail, I mainly became focused upon his eyes. I’ve always thought blue eyes to be striking so throughout this entire book whenever I imagine Holmes, his “Mesmerist” eyes are always the clearest image.
Another thing I really liked about this book was Larson’s usage of quotes. It greatly helps appeal to Ethos knowing that “anything between quotation marks comes from a letter, memoir, or other written document.” I would have to say that my two favorite quotes are the two at the very beginning of the book from Burnham and Holmes. “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood.” I find this quote to be very inspirational and true; the motivation of men often comes from a grand and elaborate scheme. Designing the fair, we can only imagine the intensity of the emotions of which the architects, as well as the rest of the world, must have felt. The second quote, one made by Holmes, provides a foreshadowing for his gruesome actions later on. “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.” The most chilling aspect of this quote for me is that I can imagine Holmes sitting in prison, speaking calmly-almost nonchalantly- to reporters, recalling his actions without a hint of emotion. He maintains an air of cool collectedness throughout the book, one of the very first hints at his psychopathic behavior. His “Mask of Sanity” allowed him to blend into the smoke and darkness of Chicago, his perfect reproduction of “a whole and normal man” so believable that Holmes even was able to appease and soothe away any possible questions people had concerning him. It’s completely horrifying to think that society can produce and then nourish such evils, and even more terrifying to know that they still lurk within the shadows of even our “white cities.”
ReplyDeleteOf all the architects involved in the building process of the fair, i find Olmstead the most interesting. To me his task is the greatest and truly the most powerful; manipulating the land as an art?!
ReplyDeleteHis job is a perfect example of how Americans have developed in believing that the land can and should be altered. Nothing is stable and concrete.
sorry *Olmsted
ReplyDeleteCLANCY...yeah!!! I was hoping you would bring up the Larson's use of quotes. Thank you. You noted that by using actual excerpts from writings done by the books real life characters Larson appeals to Ethos. I agree that this tactic lends the author a huge amount of credibility and reinforces that the dark and shocking aspects of the piece are not merely the creations of an imaginative storyteller, but are real parts of America's history.
ReplyDeleteTo Lucy
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you; Olmsted is definately the most interesting of the architects, and also possibly the most entertaining. I can totally picture an old man with glasses that magnify his eyes to outrageous proportions; someone who's completely brilliant but slightly off his rocker :P His task of manipulating and landscaping the grounds also reminds me of Wendel Berry's idea that we no longer live surrounded by nature, but that nature lives surrounded by us. The difficulty of working with the land and problems the architects encountered while building made me imagine that nature was trying to put up a fight against man's attempts to overpower it yet again.
Kimmy!
ReplyDeleteI know, it still shocks me to think that everything in the book is true. Despite the quotes and the author's assurances that the events are completely true, I still found myself wishing and wanting to believe that it wasn't. I dont know if you already read my comment to Lucy but I felt like the hardships of the architects when it came to building the fair, or anything in Chicago, were in a way nature's struggle to reclaim its freedom from man's need for dominance over his surroundings. What do you think?
Ok, so continuing with our earlier discussion of Larson's use of quotes, the most striking effect on the books development for me are the excerpts directly from Mudgett aka, Holmes's memoir. Holmes's personal writings are scattered throughout the book, but the part that originally sparked my interest was Larson's first use of these back in Part I, "The Necessary Supply". After the excerpts from Holmes's memoir, Larson clarifies that the sections recently described scenes were far from the innocent childhood experiences that Holmes described. In reality, "he was sitting in a prison cell hoping to engineer a swell of public sympathy"by somehow showing his human side, albeit manufactured. Larson contrasts Holmes's writing with his own dissection of the psychopath's character. The author's own analysis reveals the true and chilling side of Holmes that lay hidden behind the "pale blue emptiness" of his eyes. This more than any other technique used by Larson, develops Holmes's character in my mind as the cold, deceitful, and twisted man that he was.
ReplyDeleteWow Clancy, slow down.
ReplyDeleteI just read your last question, and wow that was loaded. Actually, I had not considered that idea until you just mentioned it. So, "nature's struggle to reclaim its freedom from man's need for dominance over his surroundings"...I can see it. My first thoughts on your comment went back to the one of the first chapters that discusses how Burnham and Root had to figure out a new way to lay the Montauk's foundation. This was the first of their many "tallest office building yet constructed in Chicago" that the partners would work on. Needless to say they solved the foundation problem, despite the "natural" difficulties presented by the moist soil. So back to your original question. I suppose in this situation, the most obvious response is also the opposite. It can also be said that it illustrates man's struggle to claim his environmental opportunities from nature's dominance over his surroundings. Personally, I am much more inclined to ponder and support you idea. Lets face it, nature is awesome. Plus, i feel dirty advocating for man's prostitution of natural resources.
Clancy...where are you? Don't you love me?
ReplyDeleteClancy,
ReplyDeleteYour response to Lucy’s opinion on Olmsted as one of the most interesting characters was exactly what I was thinking?! Crazy how we think along the same lines. I’ve always known that landscaping is an art but I have never seen anyone put in so much thought and care as to what a landscape should look like. His interpretation of potted plants and patches of flowers as flashy and inappropriate is brilliant. I have found myself to share the belief that, as an art form, landscape architecture “should strive to conjure effects greater than the mere sum of petals and leaves”. My favorite quote concerning Olmsted and his work on the Fair is, “through the mingling intricately together of many forms of foliage, the alternation and complicated crossing of salient leaves and stalks of varying green tints in high lights with other leaves and stalks, behind and under them, and therefore less defined and more shaded, yet partly illumined by light reflected from the water…flowers to be used for the purpose should have the effect of flecks and glimmers of bright color imperfectly breaking through the general greenery”. His vision is beautiful and it makes me, as the reader, wish that I could have seen his revelation come to life. The immense strain it must have placed upon him, to be the visionary of such a subtly spectacular place, is astounding. Back to what you were saying Clancy, I completely agree with your connection to Wendell Berry’s “An Entrance into the Woods”. I think it was Lucy who said it during our presentation, but this is yet another example of how nature has become an inhabitant in man’s world.
Kimmy and Clancy,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree Kimmy, that Clancy definitely asked a big question. I had never really thought about it (it being nature’s making a stand against man’s need for dominance) that way Clancy, but I have to agree with you. I know it is a little silly to think of nature as a being rather than an all-encompassing word for everything that is natural on earth, but that is the way I view nature. Shifting gears a little bit, but there is a quote from Kingsolver’s novel “The Poisonwood Bible” (yes I know that you underline the titles of books, but it never lets me underline when I move my blog from a Word document to the website) that has always stuck with me. Near the end of the novel she says, “Africa has a thousand ways of cleansing itself. Driver ants, Ebola virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome: all these are brooms devised by nature to sweep a small clearing very well”. I always remember this quote because, while Kingsolver is applying this solely to Africa, I apply it to nature as a whole. In my mind, nature does have thousand ways of healing itself and, going back to your question, I really agree that Chicago’s persistent soil is a branch off of one of those methods. By making itself hard to work with, I think nature was making a stand. I also have to agree with Kimmy’s point of view about how conquering the soil could easily overshadow nature’s stand for independence and support the idea that man has the ability and the steadfast determination to prevail over any obstacle, including those presented by nature. It is a deep question girly and I think the answer is in the eyes of the beholder.
Kimmy,
ReplyDeleteIn regards to one of your earlier blogs about Larson’s use of foreshadowing, i completely agree with you when you stated that it builds the readers anticipation for what is next to come but I took a slightly different approach to it. I am one of those people that doesn’t enjoy hearing that I am ignorant to something and so, every time a character or a piece of architecture was mentioned, I felt obligated to Google it. As you might have read, my first blog was a reply to Caleb’s question about the World’s Fair’s emblem. I also did not know what it was and, despite the fact that he had asked, I immediately felt compelled to Google it and find out what it was. As Aaron pointed out, had I just finished the book like a normal person, I would have found out what the emblem was and I also would have been able to appreciate Larson’s “cryptic” writing style. Unfortunately, I am too much of a straightforward person in these terms. I totally agree, however, with how you mentioned that you haven’t been able to put the book down. I’m glad I’m not alone J The author’s descriptive diction and well-researched characters draw the reader in and I find myself incapable of putting it down. “Just one more chapter” has become my motto with this novel.
To Dani and Kimmy
ReplyDeleteWow guys I definitely did not mean for that thought to be so "deep" haha Going back to The Poisonwood Bible as Dani has, I completely agree with that quote; nature has a way of reclaiming what man has taken from it. We are fighting an uphill battle with nature, each day struggling with the creeping tendrils of nature's resurgance. When I think of nature reclaiming its land, I tend to think of that one scene in Jumanji where the forest takes over their house, massive vines wrapping around the staircase and thick tree trunks twisting up through dining room. Yes, I know this is a complete exaggeration of nature making a stand, but it popped into my head and I figured you would all enjoy it! I know it's bad, but I often found myself torn throughout the book; on the one hand, I wanted Burnham to finish the fair on time, but on the other, I was honestly hoping that the land would prove dominant against man's pestering. I know I should be rooting for team people, but with the careless destruction we have caused through the generations in our quest for dominance, I find myself more and more cheering alongside team nature. Even with the knowledge of our actions upon the earth, we still continue to dig up the land and plant row upon row of track homes. Right in my own backyard, what was once a peaceful grassy hillside is slowly but surely becoming suburbs, complete with golf course. However, even though I was disappointed that nature lost in the end, I was happy that the fair was eventually built. If nothing else, at least Olmsted represented the landscape beautifully through his "mingling intricately together of many forms of foliage;" the effect was surely astonishingly breathtaking. Well I've tried to tie back to the book, because I believe I strayed onto a bit of a tangent for a while there haha. My bad. Anywho...I definitely agree with Dani and Kimmy that this was a compelling book; I found myself mesmerized with each turn of the page and spent many a night laying in bed unable to put it down. Dani I absolutely agree with you; "just one more chapter" definitely became a personal motto for Larson's novel.
Clancy,
ReplyDeleteWow. Way to not be rooting for the home team. I can’t believe you picked nature over us. It’s like you don’t even love me! I’m just kidding. I totally know where you’re coming from when you say you were hoping nature won the Battle for Jackson Park. Not going to lie, I kind of felt the same way. It is hard to sit back and observe man’s careless destruction of natural beauty. Yes, the World’s Fair turned out to be beautiful but imagine how many beautiful trees were cut down in the process; how the soil was ruined and covered with gravel and forced to uphold heavy buildings; how the lake was once free to rise and fall as it pleased and now is shoved within strict boundaries. It is a sad thought. I also completely agree with your comment about Olmsted. Even though nature “lost” the battle in this instance, at least it was fairly represented. As I mentioned in a previous blog, Olmsted had an amazing eye for creativity and beauty without all the pizzazz. To continue, I know what you mean with the Jamanji connection. A bit of an exaggeration, I will admit, but I know where you were going with it. Great connection by the way. :)