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...