arrogance= destruction

Money, fame, and style define America. We watch as celebrities flaunt their wealth with their fancy cars, homes, designer fashion and more. Companies make their products more and more advanced, bewitching our society and taking their money. There’s always competition for superiority in our society through materials. Throughout American history, we’ve tried to be the strongest country in all aspects and display the extravagance. Being materialistic, America wanted to use the World Fair as a tool to launch our country into a prosperous nation, making other countries jealous.

     The World Fair introduced America’s new obsession with being the superior nation. Arrogance- an offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride; directly relating to the fair. The fair was only constructed and designed in order to show America as a marvelous country, better than the Paris exposition. It was supposed to be designed to be bigger and better than anything that existed no matter the cost or earth limitations. The fair was one hundred percent a display of arrogance in America in the 19^th century. It was used to attract and hypnotize tourists to believe and label America as a world superpower. In order to reach this level of greatness no cost limit was enforced, displaying the arrogance and pride America developed during the World Fair’s construction and exposition. America wanted to reach the title of the number one nation, outdoing Paris’s competition of the Eifel Tower. The act of want, greed, and need for material superiority gained America a title of arrogant that continues to be a title today. It can be said that arrogance was needed to be displayed in order to gain the superiority America wanted to build and construct the beautiful, amazing world exposition. Not only was America as a whole displaying arrogance, but Chicago alone was displaying arrogance. Chicago wanted their own city to be a superior city, outdoing the competition of New York City. The fair needed to be extraordinary in order to capture and amaze tourists and businessmen from all over the world.

          Ill intensions and our corrupted society leave us in a constant state of uneasiness. I believe that when projects are planned and created with arrogance, darkness is bound to be associated with them. With such an amazing achievement of constructing  such an impressive exhibit, there will always be a downfall. There is always someone who takes advantage of other’s accomplishments. For example, Holmes took advantage of Burnham’s accomplishment of the fair as bait to lure in victims. The entire book is written from the perspective of each main character, questioning whether or not the fair differs from darkness. It directly contradicts the white city and the black city, the advancement of the fair’s technology and Holmes’s murdering spree of darkness. In life, not all things can be classified as either good or bad. Most things appear grey, not just black or just white, but a mix of good and evil. Larson’s novel reflects that when evil is associated with a situation, destruction is bound to occur.

devil in the white city: burnham vs. holmes

Erik Larson writes, “Beneath the gore and smoke and loom, this book is about the evanescence of life, and why some men choose to fill their brief allotment of time engaging in the impossible, others in the manufacture of sorrow. Larson’s purpose is to compare and contrast the two main characters, Daniel Burnham and Henry H. Holmes. One is a successful architect and the other is a successful serial killer. Burnham was the famous architect that built the World’s Fair in less than two years. Holmes is America’s first serial killer. Larson refers the “White City” to the “Black City” to show good versus evil. Burnham represents the White City by building an amazing World’s Fair that brought over 40 million visitors and Holmes represents the Black City by the evil he brings to it.

     Burnham made society better by using his “allotment of time” while gaining the respect of others. In doing this, he changed people’s perception of their own city during a depressed time when people had no hope. He pursued his goal of building America, while Holmes destroys it. Burnham is a true example of change for the better. Holmes, however, uses his charm and good looks to pursue evil. He “manufactures sorrow” by murdering women in Chicago. He perfected his fake identity as a nice young man, but with a dark side.

      Erik Larson shows the difference between the two characters not only through their positions in the world fair, but their differences in their relationships. Burnham stays true to the same wife, Margaret throughout the entire book. Holmes on the other hand, had multiple wives: Clara, Myrta, and Georgiana. Holmes never divorced any of these women before marrying the next women. While Holmes was married to all these women, he also had flirtatious interactions with many other women. Larson never once discussed Burnham interacting with any other women except Margaret. Also, Holmes didn’t have any male companions as opposed to Burnham who had a close relationship with Root. This reveals the cold loneliness in Holmes’s heart compared to the warm lovingness in Burnham’s.

     The constant comparison between good and evil shows the reader that it’s inevitable, where there is good, there is evil too. In “Evils Imminent”, Larson divulges that evil is everywhere.

      In a strange way, although the characters are very different, they have similarities. They were both successful in creating a name for themselves. Burnham for his architecture work, and Holmes for being a psychopathic killer.  They both had a way with people. Both men had a way of making others feel welcome with their charm. Burnham and Holmes were both talented in persuading others to contribute to their businesses. For example, Burnham convinced Olmstead, who opposed helping design fairs, to be a main architect of the fair. Also, Holmes persuaded Mrs. Holton to sell him the drug store. They were both clever men, Burnham for his talents, and Holmes for getting away for so long with all of the murders. He was always hiring and firing workers so that none of them got too suspicious of what he was doing. They both had the drive and ambition to attain their very different goals in life. Burnham’s goal was to build the World’s Fair and Holmes’ was to use the World’s Fair to fulfill his evil tendencies. Holmes was like an architect, in that he built a hotel, although it was for murder.  They both made history in being the first to do something. Burnham designed one of the first skyscrapers. Holmes was one of the first documented murderers. Burnham and Holmes were both wealthy men, Burnham because of his successful architecture work and Holmes because of his shady business deals.  Through Burnham and Holmes, Larson shows that the “ineluctable conflict” between good and evil is neverending.

response to modest proposal

I think the modest proposal was a great way to get a point across, being unique, and really drawing one's attention. At first, I was a tad confused, and quite repulsed, before I realized the sarcasm.He addresses the problems of the women having children they cannot take care of and describes the effects on the children, in an over exaggerative way. He's trying to convey that not only the English, but the Irish themselves are responsible for their struggling state. He uses satire to emphasize the negativeness of these situations. 

He invokes the common sight of women and children begging for food. He describes that the children will become thieves due to their desperate want for work and makes it seem as though the children have no hope of becoming a contributing citizen due to their conditions. He claims that the children can be taken care of in their first year by breast milk and the money that they beg for, it's after that when they have the problems. He dehumanizes the irish people by comparing them to animals due to the amount of off spring they produce. He describes the women as cattle, who are solely breeders and nothing else. He compares the babies as roasted pigs, when he uses satire saying the solution to the problem is to just kill all the infants. His comparisons effect Swift's satire by revealing his outrageous sarcasm.


Swift uses really graphic descriptions in his essay. For example he says things like "infant's flesh will be in season throughout the year" and "those who are more thrifty may flea the carcass; the skin of which, artificially dresses, will make admirable gloves for ladies, and summer boots for fine gentlemen". The first quote I think is an over exaggeration, but is trying to portray the suffering the poor little child will go through when they are born into a home with lots of children, and cannot be given what an infant requires. The second quote is a sarcastic remark that is supposed to bring to attention how cruel the parents are to have so many children without enough money to feed them. He brings out his proposal that selling the children as food will make them more useful, making them a contribute to society, more useful. He also states that this will bring down the poplulation drastically, which may improve the economy. The purpose of his ironic solution is to attract the reader, bring their attention to the fact that his proposal is outrageous and brutal. His purpose is to bring attention to the issue and to trigger a better (more realistic) solution to the readers' brains. The purpose also draws attention to the nation's self-degradation.


Swift introduces the problems without actually saying them. His sarcasm reveals his exhaustion of the long-term issues that have yet to be fixed. It also reveals his disinterest of the problem because he is not effected and does not have children. He believes that one shouldn't take on the responsibility of another life if they can't be responsible for their own life. His proposal that cannibalism is the answer stating that some of these children would be better off dead, is to emphasize how bad things have gotten. He thinks that all parties are at fault for the disastrous conditions. He says he's open to other proposals. He wants to fix the two key issues, how the starving should be fed and clothed, and it has to fix the poverty. Realistically, Swift feels sorry for the Irish and the terrible conditions they have to live in. He especially feels sorry for the children, who don't get to live a nice childhood, and aren't brought up correctly due to the fact that they are desperately searching for work and money is the only thing on their mind in order for their lives.

His argument was very effective, making one think of other possible solutions to the problem. It emphasized the ridiculousness of the problem. It showed how bad poverty can be on children, and how many are not trying to fix the problem but are subconsciously contributing to the economic problems. I think that even though this essay did not discuss our time period, it was a good essay to read because it can draw our attention to the similar problems we have today.

pedro romero=hero

Pedro Romero associates with Hemingway's definition of a hero. He exhibits his belief that a hero is someone who faces confronts danger head-on when he enters the bull fights. His character is fearless and when he enters the bull ring he is not afraid and takes full control of the bull. Pedro carries himself with pride and confidence at all times. He never loses control of his masculinity because of his bravery. He always remains a symbol of purity, bravery, and strength. Each time he is knocked down he gets right back up, refusing to be defeated. Pedro maintained his masculinity with Brett because he does not let her take control of him. Pedro is used in contrast to all the other characters and makes all of their weaknesses stand out. Mainly, he contrasts every character because he is not lacking meaning in his life and does not feel lost and confused. While all the other characters are in need of drinking and dancing, etc. to heal their pain, Pedro purely only goes to the fiestas for pleasure. Pedro does not drink very much and hasn't been with a lot of women. Pedro has something in his life that gives him meaning in his life. His passion for bull fighting makes his life feel complete, unlike the others who get no satisfaction from their careers. Pedro is not weak like the others and does not need sex and alcohol to make his life feel fulfilled. Pedro also highly contrasts the other men in the fact that he does not let women take full control of his life. The first time he met Brett, he did not lose self-control like all of the other men did when they interact with her. He stays strong to his morals, he will not change himself to match her lifestyle. Unlike Cohn, who sulks and and complains about Brett not wanting him, when Brett and Pedro don't work out he maintains his masculinity and suffers in silence. Pedro accepts that it is over, unlike Cohn who makes a fool out of himself by the way he won't stop chasing Brett. Pedro is an example of how all of the characters should act and portray themselves. He relies solely on himself, shows people his courageous qualities, and takes up courageous activities (bullfighting). Unlike the others, Pedro acts on what he believes in, instead of just discussing about it. Most would automatically view Jake as a hero as well because they fought in the war. Especially  because he made sacrifices for their country in the war. However, in the book he does not portray heroic qualities and comes off as a weak individual because of the way he lets Brett take full control over him and does not speak up or act upon the things he believes in. Hemingway's view of the qualities of a hero almost contrasts what most of our society would view as a hero today. Today we view a hero as somebody who is helping our society. Not necessarily somebody who is doing dangerous things such as fighting a bull, but someone who is contributing to our society and saving lives like a doctor, a fire-fighter, or someone trying contributing to the cure of cancer. Today we view people who are sacrificing their time or lives to save others as heroes. However, we do have the similar view that the people who take upon heroic activities with grace are the ones who are truly heroic.The heroes today are the ones that do courageous things without doing drugs and being heavy drinkers, like Romero. We do not view a hero as somebody who has no self-respect and uses violence when they are frustrated with situations, like Cohn. Even though everybody may have their own opinion on what a hero is to them, Romero possesses personality traits that most would view as heroic.