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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I concur with everything you said. *pause* yes, i can agree with others about these books. :)
i thought larson was intrusive at that point too. maybe we'll have to read other history/nonfiction books to see if that's common.
I also agree that the speculation is a bit much at times. Especially the instance you sighted Sarah. I find that not only does the juxtaposition work for me of the architecture vis a vis the serial killer, but I frankly don't know if I could survive this book without the reprieves from the dungeon that I find the Holmes story to be.
--Chris--
Oh, and as a side note, Emily has been banned from reading this book. She tried to start it, but both myself and Skew have told her not to read it. Pregnancy does some strange things to hormones that would not gel well with this book, although to be honest, I'm not sure I would want her to read this anyway.
Post a Comment