Devil in the White City #2

I would have to say that the entire Fair, "in its extravagant size and cost" was an exhibition of arrogance. 


This is an exhibition of arrogance, because the Fair was intentionally built to surpass the greatness of the fair held in France. The fair in France received admiration for all it had to offer, such as art, cultural unity, and of course, the Eiffel Tower. The French, and other supporters, were quite bigheaded and believed that an American world fair could not be as nearly treasured as the one in France. The doubts that people all over the world had only strengthened the motivation of the constructors of the World's Fair. The constructors wanted nothing but to prove them wrong, and to do it well. Thus, becoming an exhibition of arrogance, because it was built to commend one city, of one state, of one nation only. 


The World's Fair was also built in arrogance by celebrating Columbus' discovery of the New World. Back then, when Columbus discovered the Americas, the New World was in the spotlight, leaving the Old World in the shadows. On this scale, the Fair was an exhibition of arrogance by paying attribute only to the new, the younger, the undiscovered. 


In Devil in the White City, Chicagoans were desperate for the World's Fair to be held in in their hometown. Chicago was originally looked down upon, popular for its stench and grimy streets. They hoped that if and when the Fair was to be held in Chicago, its popularity and good name would be restored. Famous cities like New York, and D.C. were the first places that came to mind for many people for the Fair to be held at, but Chicagoans disliked this since their city was the one that needed the pick-me-up. 


In the end, I do believe that these creative acts engendered darker, destructive parallels. By this, I mean it only would have been natural for other cities or countries, especially France, to be fed up with the World Fair's creation. If person has an opponent who is constantly trying to one up them, and if the opponent does so successfully, one is expected to be a little bitter about their loss. But I don't believe these creative acts engendered darker parallels, or at least, I don't understand who such a thing could have done so. This book makes it clear that a world exists with both good and evil, and that you cannot escape from either one, but I do not understand how the parallel to an arrogant, creative act could lead someone, or attract someone, to killing.


At the same time, however, H.H. Holmes was quite a unique character...

Devil in the White City #1

First, I will admit that I needed to look up the definitions for 'evanescence' (I've only heard of the band :P) and for 'ineluctable.'


evanescent |ˌevəˈnesənt|adjective chiefly poetic/literarysoon passing out of sight, memory, or existence; quickly fading ordisappearing : a shimmering evanescent bubble. 
ineluctable |ˌiniˈləktəbəl|adjectiveunable to be resisted or avoided; inescapable : the ineluctable facts of history.
The Devil in the White City reveals that good and evil cannot exist without the other. If the world, or more relevant to this book, Chicago, was purely 'good' or 'evil,' than it actually would not have a label at all, because it would be the norm. "The shadow proves the sunshine," and "In order for the light to shine so brightly, the darkness must be present" illustrate good and evil's codependency.  But that is only an "if" situation, and in reality and in this book, good and evil is in fact, ineluctable. 
Here, the Chicago World's Fair is good. It is a symbol of American patriotism, modern advancement, etc., especially to its creators and fellow Chicagoans. To the builders, including Burnham and Root, and Chicagoans, it was their pride and glory. Chicago was basically seen as nothing more than a stink-hole, and only the World's Fair could have given it the recognition that its citizens were desperate for.
While regular people, either locals or foreigners, marveled at all the fair had to offer, one man, H.H. Holmes, found dozens of opportunities to tarnish the World's Fair. He is infamously known as one of America's first serial killers, and used the White City to reel in his victims. 
The two main characters, Burnham and Holmes definitely have several essential differences between them. First being their passion (well, in Holmes' case, a creepy obsession). Burnham is passionate about drawing and architecture. He is concerned about doing his best, and constantly strives to one-up his competitors, and even his old work. At the beginning of the book, Burnham is quoted, saying "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." This quote emphasizes his spirit, and the good that he brings to the creation of the World's Fair. 
Holmes , on the other hand, is quoted at the beginning of the book, saying " I was born with he devil in me. I could not help the fact that I was a murderer, no more than a poet can help the inspiration to sing." While Burnham was given the gift of art and architecture and intentionally decided to make a living out of it, Holmes says this is such a way that almost makes him sound like he was taken advantage of. For example, when he says "I was born with the devil in me," he sounds like he is trying to convince an audience that he isn't the one to blame for all the murders, that there is something, or someone far worse who is actually the cause of it all. Then, he says "I could not help the fact that I was a murderer" like he didn't have any other choice but to kill. 
Even though the differences between Burnham and Holmes are quite evident, they did, in some twisted way, have things in common. For one, their minds were completely wrapped up in their occupation. Burnham was, as illustrated in this book, in love with his job and always tried to be the best. Holmes, always moving from place to place and scheming, was consumed by killing. Secondly, another thing they had in common was that they were good at what they did. 

# 2 "A Modest Proposal"

sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn

"A Modest Proposal" by Dr. Jonathan Swfit was written in 1729 and is a sarcastic essay in which he believes he is promoting for the good of Dublin, Ireland.  As the solution to poverty and starvation within Dublin, Dr. Swfit suggests eating babies; or to put it simply, cannibalism. He states " I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children . . . is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom, a very great additional grievance." Later on, he states "I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection." Dr. Swfit is being especially sarcastic right here, for if one proposes for a city to eat children, he or she MUST expect opposition. 


When he first introduces his proposal, Dr. Swfit compares children to animals. He continues to say how a number of children will be reserved for the specific purpose of breeding, and how "these children are seldom the fruit of marriage . . . therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females." This part is completely dehumanizing! All I could think was, " is this guy really suggesting that the human race is equal to the those of the animal kingdom!?" Next, he casually describes the plumping process and sales of children. He says after about a year, the children should be fat enough, and at the last month the mother may allow them to "suck plentifully," of course, before being sold. After that he goes on to say that seasoning the carcasses of the children correctly would lead to quite a good meal. 


He then continues to talk about the proposed cannibalism, then writes to justify the reasons for doing so. He states reasons such as: lessesning the number of Paptists, giving the poor something of value, economic growth, etc.  He also goes on to say that even if one thousand families were constant consumers of child carcasses, there would still be plenty of people left to populate the rest of Dublin. 


I have to admit that I didn't catch on to Dr. Swift's satire the first time I read this. I was disgusted at the thought that some, especially a doctor, who I figured had to have a great amount of intelligence, would ever propose such a thing as cannibalism. Then, as I reread this essay, I realized that Dr. Swift actually felt sympathy towards the people of Dublin.


Dr. Swfit loves Dublin, and several times throughout the essay, emphasizes the fact that his proposal is for Dublin's greater good in mind. I also noticed that Dr. Swfit referred to Dublin as the "kingdom." This shows that he he feels great pride for Dublin, Ireland, and puts it above other countries, and even above himself. In the end, he genuinely hurts for the Irish who face poverty and/or starvation. I can read that he really wants to be involved and help Dublin during its time of need. 


I also noticed that Dr. Swfit used a good amount of statistics throughout his essay, proving that he thoroughly reviewed this proposal. If it were not for me finally realizing that Dr. Swift used satire throughout the essay, I actually would have believed that his position was in favor of cannibalism. The fact that Swift is a doctor, and therefore is a credible source of the included statistics, makes it harder for, or at least drags out the process for, readers to understand his true thoughts. 


When I first read this essay, I thought the title, "A Modest Proposal," was completely contradictory to Dr. Swfit's writing. Proposing an idea such as cannibalism is far from, or actually, is the complete opposite of modesty. If anything, I thought, it is bold, daring, radical. But now, I would have to say that it truly is a modest proposal. It is modest because Dr. Swfit's feelings are not, at any point, completely or simply put out there on the table. He uses  satire to express his views and feelings on poverty in Dublin, but at the same time, stays away from that vulnerability that comes from telling the honest truth. 


I enjoyed "A Modest Proposal." I am definitely one who appreciates the art of sarcasm (my mother can agree with that!). I like the fact that Dr. Swift decided to be creative, instead of doing the average essay that is to the point with a list of reasons as to why something should or should not be done. 

Second Semester Blog #1: Pedro Romero

Hemingway defined a code of ethics for heroism, the most important tenet being that a brave hero exhibits "grace under pressure." What this means is that in difficult situations -- especially mortal ones -- the hero handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on.  First, how does Romero display these qualities in The Sun Also Rises?  Second, how does this mesh with our modern heroes?  Minimum 650 words.


In The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemmingway writes of the "Lost Generation"- a group of post-war individuals. In the midst of their madness, Hemmingway introduces Pedro Romero, a nineteen year old matador who serves as the foil to Jake Barnes, the narrator of the novel. Romero is written as Hemmingway's ideal version of a hero. Romero is pure, confident, and does not fear danger. For these reasons, he is looked onto as as superior character in comparison to the World War I veterans of this story.


Being only nineteen years old, Romero hadn't experienced as much as the group of friends in this novel, and therefore remains pure. Romero did not experience the loss of a loved one, as Brett did; he did not experience a life-changing injury, the violence of war, and did not serve in the war, as Jake did. Life had only consisted of bull-fights so far in Romero's life. There was nothing that had tainted his vision. Also, before meeting Brett, Romero did not feel the kind of love as she and him had had together. The love that they shared together was brand new.  The reason Romero's purity is significant heroic, is because the other characters' impurities lead them to be messed up individuals. Jake, Brett, Cohn, Mike, Bill- all of them were living lives which consisted of sex, drinking, and partying nonstop. They each gave into their weaknesses, and it only left them unhappy and unsatisfied with their lives.


"The Lost Generation" was also known for being a group of people who did not believe that they had a future. After the war, their outlook on life seemed so demented that the thought of a bright future was nothing but a joke. Romero, in contrast, exhibits "grace under pressure" because he does believe in his own future, and is not afraid to take on whatever is to be served to him. Once Romero and Brett began their affair, they decided to be together. Romero was not afraid to settle down, while Brett was. He was able to see their future together, but Brett was too afraid to follow through. Because Romero was not a part of "the Lost Generation," he had something that the others lacked: hope. The others saw that their lives were pretty much over, whereas Romero knew it had just begun. 


While Romero demonstrated his heroism outside of the ring, he definitely showed it within the ring as well. To be a bull-fighter in the first place is quite heroic, considering the potential dangers that are offered. The steers in the book are gored, and some even die. By putting himself at risk, Romero demonstrates his confidence in himself. Romero was said to have "never made any contortion, always it was straight and natural in line." Romero did not beat around the bush. He put 100% of himself into bull-fighting. Even though he was in the face of danger, he did not flinch. He carried within himself a sense of confidence and professionalism. Also, Hemmingway writes "Romero's bull-fighting gave real emotion, because he kept the absolute purity of line in his movements and always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time," which is a metaphor. First of all, Romero was not afraid to share his emotions, and was not afraid to deal with them. The drunks in this novel, however, use drinking itself as an escape from the truth, and from their very own emotions. Next, Romero "always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time," meaning that he did not try to shove his problems away. He allowed them to come, he did not stop them, but he did not let them hurt him either.  


Romero's qualities definitely blend in with our modern day heroes. Heroes are no longer seen just as those who go out there and fight crimes. Heroes were also seen as those who were fearless, but there have never been such people. Romero is a hero because even though he knew that life was tough, and that he had things to fear around every corner, he did not sit back and let life continue without him. He decided to take charge of his own life and do something meaningful with it. He decided to live with passion, and I think it's something heroic and respectable that people of these modern times can look up to. 

#14

Generally speaking, I do not believe public schools should teach students ethics and personal values. Every person is a unique human being with different views and beliefs, making values personal. School should be a safe, positive, and accepting environment where students can develop into "good citizens" just by being present. For example, I have learned from school to be a respectful and responsible young lady, even though it was never put into lesson plans, or actually taught by teachers.
Personally, I don't think science classes should teach students about evolution just because there are many students, such as myself, who believe in creation, or disagree with the idea altogether. I agree that it isn't fair to teach about any religion or religious values in public school, and therefore I do not think it is fair to teach a controversial theory.

#15

Blog #15 - Discuss the three reasons Sante gives for a breakdown of secrecy (Soviet Union/KGB, internet, “confessional culture”/media). Do you agree, for example, that the Internet is a “nemesis” to secrecy? Defend your answer. 

#13

Reserved!