Wow! Not sure where to begin. I have a lot of disjointed not very fully formed thoughts on this book so far, so this is going to be a bit free form and disorganized.
Let me start by saying that I appreciate Sarah's willingness to venture into non-fiction. As a rule, I tell myself I don't much enjoy non-fiction, yet any time I have read it (not often) it seems I have enjoyed the book, so perhaps it is mere prejudice with little basis in fact. Anyway, I also really like that it is a subject I don't know much about, so despite being non-fiction I still don't know the ending. Let me demonstrate my ignorance. I have no idea if this fair ends up being a big success, or complete failure. Is the Sears tower the thing that is built to compete with the Eiffel tower? I don't know. That would be my guess, but I could be way off. Its all quite exciting to learn a bit of history but have it be presented in this manner.
I love reading about different time periods as well. I guess what I mean is, its fun learning about events in history, but I also like learning about the culture and atmosphere of our history. Look at how ugly Chicago was, how much crime existed in the big city. Interesting look into a time when unions held a lot more power. One of my favorit mini-stories in the book about the lieutenant being sent to Zanzibar to bring a family of 12 to 14 of the (dang it I can't remember the word it was something like fierce) little pygmies to the fair. Which, I wouldn't be surprised if that had an unhappy ending thus giving up Zanzibarbarians in the Muppets (or Rhubarbarians in Veggie Tales). Or the guy who bought the rights to exhibit an Algerian village and its inhabitants. Just a little different than our present day view towards other peoples.
Then there is the complete other side, the dark, ugly side. This is the part of the book I'm really not sure how I feel about. On the one hand, I can't help but be morbidly curious about how this will all turn out, and what exactly is going on. I'm frankly glad that so far we haven't had more than cursory mentions of disappearances without too much detail, but I worry about having to read more than that. Perhaps before being married and having two daughters I could have read this a bit easier, but now it is just a reminder of the fallenness in this world, and the potential dangers that forever lurk in places least expected. Perhaps as scary, is the looking into self that reading something like this forces. Could that have been me? Save for the grace of God, isn't that same psychopath somewhere in me that could have been released by the right circumstances. I want to say no, but something tells me that is nothing more than wishful thinking. I am very disturbed by the whole story, and not sure if that means it is a good thing or a bad thing that I am reading this.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Next Book...
Maybe I brought this up already before choosing my last book. Can't remember; but have any of ya'll read Ender's Game? If not, or if its been awhile, I think I'm leaning towards that book. I also have a fantasy series the first book of which is a possibility, but I believe that Eden is leaning towards a fantasy book with her next selection.
A little note!
For those of you who have seen Muppet Treasure Island...it turns out that Zanzibarbarians really exist! At least something akin to them according to the book! Too funny!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why does Holmes' hotel remind me of the one in Angel?
Sorry that this is a whole week late. Just finished part one. Whew.
I really do like this book, it's just super hard for me to stay in it. I'm not used to reading any nonfiction and even though this is written more novel-like, there is still a serious lack of dialogue to break up very long paragraphs. That seems awfully juvenile of me, but visually it's easier to take in. Too much children's books, i suppose.
I find it funny or strange that Sarah pointed out the same thing I marked in my book. The exact same quote about the skeleton. I just wanted to say, 'well, how the hell do you know that?' to Mr. Larson. I mean, sure, he's writing it all down, but where does he get that idea? No reason for it to be any different than Holmes' word. Not that he's to be trusted.
Wow, is he spooky or what? I mean, just creeeeeepy. Makes me terribly nervous when I read his chapter/sections. But at the same time, I'm intrigued. I want to slap all those women for trusting him. A guy too smooth for his own good? Never, ever trust them. EVER! Sorry, those women are just idiots on some level. Maybe people were less wary back then. And the thing with animals and babies not being put off by him. My theory is that he never meant harm to the animals or babies, so they couldn't sense his weirdness.
Burnham is definitely interesting. I find myself drifting a bit in his chapters, but I think Larson does a great, great job of making everything so urgent. Like the whole bit with the eastern architects and olmstead and all the waiting. I just wanted to scream, 'make a decision already you silly people!'
There are some great quotes in this so far, though.
"enough so that each year Burnham bought a barrel of fine Madeira and aged it by shipping it twice around the world on slow freighters." (40) Now that's wealth!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." (41) Gives me good chills every time I read it.
"Chicago is like the man who marries a woman with a ready-made family of twelve," he said. "The trouble is just begun" (49) Made me laugh.
My heart was sad about Root. I liked their friendship. I can't imagine how much that must have hurt Burnham. Definitely a good cliffhanger to end part one on.
I realize this is unlike my other reviews as I can't seem to comment on the actual writing. Maybe it's my lack of nonfiction knowledge. Whatever it is, the writing isn't bugging me. Other than the fact that it's pretty dense.
On to the next bit.
I really do like this book, it's just super hard for me to stay in it. I'm not used to reading any nonfiction and even though this is written more novel-like, there is still a serious lack of dialogue to break up very long paragraphs. That seems awfully juvenile of me, but visually it's easier to take in. Too much children's books, i suppose.
I find it funny or strange that Sarah pointed out the same thing I marked in my book. The exact same quote about the skeleton. I just wanted to say, 'well, how the hell do you know that?' to Mr. Larson. I mean, sure, he's writing it all down, but where does he get that idea? No reason for it to be any different than Holmes' word. Not that he's to be trusted.
Wow, is he spooky or what? I mean, just creeeeeepy. Makes me terribly nervous when I read his chapter/sections. But at the same time, I'm intrigued. I want to slap all those women for trusting him. A guy too smooth for his own good? Never, ever trust them. EVER! Sorry, those women are just idiots on some level. Maybe people were less wary back then. And the thing with animals and babies not being put off by him. My theory is that he never meant harm to the animals or babies, so they couldn't sense his weirdness.
Burnham is definitely interesting. I find myself drifting a bit in his chapters, but I think Larson does a great, great job of making everything so urgent. Like the whole bit with the eastern architects and olmstead and all the waiting. I just wanted to scream, 'make a decision already you silly people!'
There are some great quotes in this so far, though.
"enough so that each year Burnham bought a barrel of fine Madeira and aged it by shipping it twice around the world on slow freighters." (40) Now that's wealth!
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." (41) Gives me good chills every time I read it.
"Chicago is like the man who marries a woman with a ready-made family of twelve," he said. "The trouble is just begun" (49) Made me laugh.
My heart was sad about Root. I liked their friendship. I can't imagine how much that must have hurt Burnham. Definitely a good cliffhanger to end part one on.
I realize this is unlike my other reviews as I can't seem to comment on the actual writing. Maybe it's my lack of nonfiction knowledge. Whatever it is, the writing isn't bugging me. Other than the fact that it's pretty dense.
On to the next bit.
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Devil in the White City: Part One
I'm rather enjoying this book. I was initially skeptical about the juxtaposition of the two halves of the book (Burnham vs. Holmes), that it would feel forced or like two separate stories, but I find it working for me. At first, I thought I would be more interested in the Holmes story because for some reason, I find true crime with serial killers rather fascinating, but I think I'm more interested in the planning and to-be execution of the fair.
One thing that I am a bit hesitant about, but don't know if this is common of history writers/books is the speculation. I realize to make it seem novelistic there has to be some reasonable assumptions made, but I question Larson's leaps into the psychological motivations of the characters, particularly Holmes'. For instance (on 39), Larson notes of Holmes's encounter with the skeleton, "The incident probably did occur, but with a different choreography. More likely the two older boys discovered that their five-year-old victim did not mind the excursion; that far from struggling and shrieking, he merely gazed at the skeleton with cool appreciation. When his eyes settled back upon his captors, it was they who fled." This seems to be pure speculation from what I can tell. Larson's suggestion that Holmes likely kept "the skulls of small animals that he disabled and then dissected, alive" is at least based on some observed psychology.
And then because of Larson's assumptions, I feel like making my own. Seriously, the lone sentence that reads, "Mudgett's only close friend was an older child named Tom, who was killed in a fall while the boys were playing in an abandoned house" makes me want to scream "He pushed him! He pushed him!"
One (semi-) narrator intrusion into the text that I did not mind however comes near the end of part one, as the architects are being wined and dined: "It was the first in a sequence of impossibly rich and voluminous banquets whose menus raised the question of whether any of the city's leading men could possibly have a functional artery" (97). I had to read it twice because I didn't expect the tongue-in-cheek humor.
By the by, I ran across this at my library. I haven't had time to watch this yet, but hope to at some point. It's a documentary about the '93 World's Fair called EXPO: Magic of the White City.
One thing that I am a bit hesitant about, but don't know if this is common of history writers/books is the speculation. I realize to make it seem novelistic there has to be some reasonable assumptions made, but I question Larson's leaps into the psychological motivations of the characters, particularly Holmes'. For instance (on 39), Larson notes of Holmes's encounter with the skeleton, "The incident probably did occur, but with a different choreography. More likely the two older boys discovered that their five-year-old victim did not mind the excursion; that far from struggling and shrieking, he merely gazed at the skeleton with cool appreciation. When his eyes settled back upon his captors, it was they who fled." This seems to be pure speculation from what I can tell. Larson's suggestion that Holmes likely kept "the skulls of small animals that he disabled and then dissected, alive" is at least based on some observed psychology.
And then because of Larson's assumptions, I feel like making my own. Seriously, the lone sentence that reads, "Mudgett's only close friend was an older child named Tom, who was killed in a fall while the boys were playing in an abandoned house" makes me want to scream "He pushed him! He pushed him!"
One (semi-) narrator intrusion into the text that I did not mind however comes near the end of part one, as the architects are being wined and dined: "It was the first in a sequence of impossibly rich and voluminous banquets whose menus raised the question of whether any of the city's leading men could possibly have a functional artery" (97). I had to read it twice because I didn't expect the tongue-in-cheek humor.
By the by, I ran across this at my library. I haven't had time to watch this yet, but hope to at some point. It's a documentary about the '93 World's Fair called EXPO: Magic of the White City.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Pre-The Devil in the White City
I'm unsure how much background reading you guys want to do, but I figured I may as well toss up a link to some information about H. H. Holmes. I find it interesting, but I may have spoiled some of the intrigue in The Devil in the White City for myself.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
The Alchemist
Wow! I was blown away by this book. I absolutely loved it. I agree with Sarah's comment, that in some ways it was refreshing for an author to be so blatant about its "message" as opposed to couching it in hidden sometimes hard to decipher allegory and metaphor. I will throw in, the obvious caveats that A. as Eden has documented the writing is not harmonious to the English reader and B. I have some obvious qualms about some of the religious views that were encouraged by the book.
However, the only strong objection I have is the preponderance of omens and signs. In some way, there is truth to the thought that God does speak to us in many ways through many things, natural and supernatural, however the point that is lacking is a certain amount of discernment. Those looking for signs will find them in many ways and places. Without discernment and grounding in the Truth, there would be great opportunity for misunderstanding and outright self-delusion. Other than that, I think there are a lot of truths that even though they are not clearly Christian, are things that really resonated with me. I really should make notes as I read, so I could reference how many times I said..."Yeah, that's right" and "That is so insightful". One of the ones that really stuck out to me though, was the comment by the alchemist, "The desert will give you an understanding of the world; in fact, anything on the face of the earth will do that. You don't even have to understand the desert: all you have to do is contemplate a single grain of sand, and you will see in it all the marvels of creation."
However, the only strong objection I have is the preponderance of omens and signs. In some way, there is truth to the thought that God does speak to us in many ways through many things, natural and supernatural, however the point that is lacking is a certain amount of discernment. Those looking for signs will find them in many ways and places. Without discernment and grounding in the Truth, there would be great opportunity for misunderstanding and outright self-delusion. Other than that, I think there are a lot of truths that even though they are not clearly Christian, are things that really resonated with me. I really should make notes as I read, so I could reference how many times I said..."Yeah, that's right" and "That is so insightful". One of the ones that really stuck out to me though, was the comment by the alchemist, "The desert will give you an understanding of the world; in fact, anything on the face of the earth will do that. You don't even have to understand the desert: all you have to do is contemplate a single grain of sand, and you will see in it all the marvels of creation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)