Extended Reflection Journal (500 Words)

In what ways does the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 change America? What lasting inventions and ideas did it introduce into American culture? What important figures were critically influenced by the Fair?



The Chicago World Fair changed America in many ways! One of the big things was the fact that people’s idea of America had drastically changed. They now knew what we were able to accomplish and the boundaries we could push to do the best. The World Fair was the first large scale fair in America, where as the previous fair was in France. And for many centuries after we accomplished building the fair and actually making a large profit, the view of America basically changed permanently for many people, especially people who were able to visit the fair. The Chicago World Fair provided us with a place to show of marvels: large buildings/structures, eclectic exhibits like Egypt, and also showed a lot of our values. A large part of the marvels at this particular fair was the Ferris wheel, the biggest in the world. It was said that nearly 46 people could fit into one of the seating areas, which were basically the size of a small house. We should off a great deal of our culture, but of other cultures as well.
We showed off things like different countries: Germany, Egypt, Italian, etc… And this showed that although we wanted people to realize what America could do as a country it also showed of achievements of other places as well. The World Fair basically started a restoration of people’s wants and morals. The people that went to the fair and what they said about the fair was extremely influential to some people. A big thing that changed though was fashion, women were started to dress with new styles and changing from the modern morays of the time. People began expanding their palate, with eating foods from other countries, which were available at the fair. Something that Chicago wanted to do is show that the architecture they created and built was works of art, not just paintings and sculptures.
Another big part of the fair was the numerous inventions that were created just for the fair. Things like the Ferris wheel, which I mentioned earlier, and showed off our uses of electricity with incandescent light bulbs, and a structure created out of the light which was timed with music. People could also see these inventions and potentially change the way that they lived with things like, electric incubators for eggs, the “moving sidewalk”, laundry machines, etc.. But the marvel of inventions was Thomas Edison’s Kaleidoscope. This showed moving pictures and was created to draw in tourists and make an even larger profit for the fair. Also around the fair you could pay special photographers to take photos for you since you were not permitted to take photographs yourself.
The fair was influential to many as well as inspirational. Many architects were realizing that they could become famous and make a living off something that they were talented at and loved to do. And these architects were able to show off their skills to the public. Citizens of Chicago and tourists were able to see these wonders for only a few cents(the cost to get into the fair) and they had the ability to interact with new inventions and experience new things. By them doing this they helped stimulate the economy and spread growth of architecture, art, music, and the acceptance of other cultures.

Extended Reflection Journal (500 Words)

In describing the collapse of the roof of Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building, Larson writes "In a great blur of snow and silvery glass the building's roof—that marvel of late nineteenth-century hubris, enclosing the greatest volume of unobstructed space in history—collapsed to the floor below" [p. 196–97]. Was the entire Fair, in its extravagant size and cost, an exhibition of arrogance? Do such creative acts automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel?


A few things that our nation tends to be about is the latest styles, money, and fame, as self-centered as that sounds. We always want the bigger and the best or what the latest things on the market are. America has always been seen as an amazing place, or the country of opportunity. Even hundreds of years ago America was the country people wanted to live in. Another way to make this country more appealing is add an element of excitement: The World Fair. What comes with the beginnings of the world fair is a sense of arrogance and excess amounts of pride. Even with the fair in this book being in Chicago, it would fail unless it beat the fair previous to it, the Fair in France. The fair was designed as a way to bring revenue into the venue place and make that place even more and more appealing. No matter what the cost of the fair, or the stakes that are against them it had to be the biggest, the most extravagant, and the best.
In order for us to have the best there is uncommonly the arrogance part of everything. America wanted to be number one and we showed the world the arrogant, prideful, and selfish side of us. We had become so greedy we didn’t care about anything but being the best. The Fair had to shock visitors and bring them to their knees. They needed to see what America could do, what beauty they could create in such little time. We needed to be the “star” of the show. When arrogance is thrown into the creation of something there is always a darker side. You have all your emotions coming into effect: your greed, your needs, and everything else. With everything light there is a dark. With beauty there is always an ugly side and that is exactly how it was for the world fair.
The whole novel is encompassed by the juxtaposition of the light and dark and this is a great example. The book even explains how the fair will bring out the weirdos in the darkness and show people of Chicago what lies right under their noses. With the advancement of Holman and the fair, Holmes advances and so does his murdering sprees. Holmes becomes some what of an architect himself when he builds the building for himself and other businesses to occupy. He also throws in the greed factor. In the novel it explains how Holmes will buy anything he wants without paying and when collectors come, he somehow makes the, go away and he never has to pay a penny. Without showing this underlying effect of good and evil the novel would not be factual. Larson had to say and show everything exactly how it was and he accomplished that. And by explaining the destruction of the fair was because of arrogance you really show that when there is light there is always a dark. And Larson does a great job showing it and explaining it without having to “dumb” things down.

Burnham/Holmes Comparison (500 Words)

Larson begins this nonfiction novel with the intro “Evils Imminent”. He explains that there will be good and evil in this story, where good is Burnham and evil is Holmes. When Larson writes “Beneath the gore and smoke and loam…” He is explaining the setting of the story. These words are describing the stock yards, and the dirty streets, that were really only in Chicago during the 1800’s. Burnham and Holmes are similar in the fact that they are both extremely passionate in the things they do and they always want to get the job done. The part that’s different is the job they’re doing: architecture and murder. They both become well known for the things they’ve done and accomplished. They live their lives as they want to and not how others say they should. Larson begins describing Holmes as a gentleman and honest and trustworthy, shows that no one could have seen the evil inside him. His murders have to be perfect because he strives for perfection, they have to go exactly as he plans them.
Burnham’s idea of perfection are his buildings, his architecture. He strives for the bigger and better buildings. His buildings always have to be taller than the others as well. He wants the fame and the fortune and the only way for him to get it is by creating the ultimate work of art: skyscrapers. Burnham is constantly thinking of the fair and how he will make it ten times better then the fair that France had created. Although the men’s lives are different in the things they pursue and the careers they want to perfect.
The two men are similar in the fact that they are doing the ultimate: achieving the impossible and “manufacturing” sorrow. The two men are connected even though neither of them have met the other. They are similar in how passionate they are and how they want to perfect everything they come across. But they are inevitably brought together by a single event: The World Fair.
You notice in the book that Good and Evil, light and dark, White City and Black City are contrasted with the books main characters. Burnham is associated with the good, the light, and the white city. Holmes is associates with the evil, the dark, and the black city. In the story the White City is the beautiful, artistic, and glorious part of Chicago that most people walking around see, the place where Burnham thrives. Burnham has created much of the White City and that is where he sees his perfection. On the other hand, the Black City, is the place where Holmes thrives. This is the place that not many people see. It’s the darker side of Chicago, where Holmes can perfect his craft: murder. This is the place that people don’t want to see or talk about. It’s the “dirty” part of the city and a place where not many people dwell.
Larson uses this not to prepare readers for the juxtaposition of these two subjects, and the fact that their passion for perfection might be there downfall.

Extra Credit: Satire.

Satire is a form of literary genre or form. When you use satire vices, follies, or abuses are held up to ridicule. Satire isn't just to create humor in writing but to also create social criticism using wit as a weapon. Today satire can be found in many places: literature, plays, commentary, and media.
Satire isn't something that has come out recently, its been around for an extremely long time. One of the earliest examples of satire is The Satire of the Trades. It is an Egyptian writing from the beginning of the 2nd millennium B.C. The readers of this text were students, tired of studying. It argues that their lot as scribes is useful, and their lot far superior to that of ordinary men. Some scholars thought the text was supposed to be serious but this was the beginning of satire.
In the 20th century satire was used to make serious commentary on social changes in society. A satirical film called The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin is a satire on Adolf Hitler. For many writes and movie producers satire is used as one of their main weapons. H.L. Mencken, a social critic, said that “one horse-laugh is worth then thousand syllogisms” in the persuasion of the public to accept criticism. You could say that satire is trying to “correct” social behavior. “The reason satirists don’t just write moral stories encouraging people to good worth, and the reason they feel warranted in showing his anger and fury at the common faults and vices of men is that the satirist's world is not a world of basic good accidentally gone astray, where every man would seek good if he know how or were shown the way, but rather it is one of fools who either claim to possess virtue already, or who have already rejected it, claiming that vice is (or is as good as) virtue. “ (Robert Harris). What this quote is saying is that you can’t just show naive man facts and try and make him change but you can show him the same thing but in a satirical way and he thinks that maybe change could be possible. He gets to figure out the idea of change by himself.
Often time’s authors use satire to get their ideas across to others. Satirical authors often mock society in the way they feel it would be in the future, if actions the society takes goes to far. Satire does have a flaw though. Sometimes the only people who understand the meaning of satire are the people who agree with the satire’s criticism. If a person doesn’t agree with the satire’s criticism they might see the text as unsophisticated or stupid. An example of this scenario is the television show South Park. This show is said to be one of the greatest form of satire that was a production in the history of television. Many people think that South Park is hilarious and they love to watch it but others find the show stupid, and immature. Satire can raise valid points about society but its nearly impossible to point out an error that is normal in a culture when many people are so fixed in their culture. So to many satire becomes wuite irrelevant when bringing up social problems. Satire is definitely essential to a free society. Satirists often are forerunners of error in a society. Satirists end up exposing “evils” that we commit every day. For example, a person being mislead in an advertisement and still buying that product. When people do this they end up giving advertisers power to keep misleading consumers. Satire still being around also shows how free of a society we have. We have the ability to point out a flaw in such a manner where it makes fun of the flaw. Luckily we have the ability to criticize powers that people don’t understand. Satire hardly has the ability to be a force of change in society because it is so limited but not everyone has to hear a satirists “voice” for their ideas to be heard. Because society can change because one person heard or read something.
Satire is definitely also a form of persuasion. The tone satirists use can often be read as persuasion or irony. It can “plant a seed” in a persons’ head and make them think. The text has an underlying meaning that sometimes a person can understand and sometimes a person just cant read between the lines. Satirical televisions shows are getting to be extremely popular now-a-days. Many satirical shows include; David Letterman, Saturday Night Live and the Colbert Report. Televisions seems to be the easiest way for satirist to get a point across because it is understood with humor involved. Another famous satirical work is A Modest Proposal by Jonathon Swift. In his writing he expresses the need for the people of Ireland to start eating children of the poor. He explains that by eating these poor children, it will let the wealthy people and their children thrive along with the community. Swift is trying to promote the consumption of one-year-old children to eliminate the growing number of poor citizens in Ireland. He uses an extreme form of irony to point out the inhumane conditions in colonized Ireland.
Satire can be extremely entertaining for people now a days, and it also tries to voice an opinion on problems in society today. Satire can use irony, sarcasm, ridicule, to expose folly. Satire can be seen as a way for people to explain their concerns about something and maybe someone might read or see what they have to say and decide they believe in the same cause. Satire is definitely something that isn’t a recent thing, its been around for an extremely long time. Satirical writers try to shine light on things that many people might never have brought up but they put a humerous twist on it. It makes it almost easier to read and understand. Even though satire doesn’t have a great impact on society it does bring up problems that are “swept under the carpet”.

Response to "A Modest Proposal"

In Jonathan Swift’s satire, “A Modest Proposal” , Swift makes a crazy solution to the people of Ireland to eat the young of the poor people. He proposes several alot of reasons for the solution to the problem of an over-abundance of poor people living on the streets of Ireland. But, the author never answered the question about how to pay for killing the children so his argument became a lot less effective.
It is the author’s opinion that the solution given inside the proposal was not meant to be a serious answer to the problem; instead it was a call to arms for the people of Ireland to begin thinking about the growing problem of the poor, and to come up with answers that problem. The solution the author gives is not exactly persuasive but the idea of it is the part that gets the reader to actually think about it.


The person the author is trying to convince to do this is obviously the people of Ireland, where the problem of the poor is actually happening. The essay’s suggestion was shocking of course; I mean eating babies is a way to save the economy? Come on. But he presented relevant facts and really had support for his issue.


Swift really got into depth when talking about the suggestion. He included possible preparations for the children and also the clear financial benefits. Swift created many pamphlets but this one was the most sarcastic . And “A Modest Proposal” was the last of his writings about Ireland. The time period when this pamphlet came out was when the people of Ireland were extremely poor. Many women were widowed and had no way of supporting their families. And many times the children were not cared for, and they ended up being thieves and what not. Is solution was economically “just”. If the children were used as food they would be more appreciated because they would be needed to feed the Irish people.


But swift really wanted the wealthy people to change! The rich had been criticizing the poor because they were not helping solve the problems they were faced with in Ireland. He really wanted a response from the people who read “A Modest Proposal”. He wanted to know what they though, obviously. Because the idea of doing what he suggested in this writing was outrageous. But within all of the silly ideas he “hides” some practical solutions into the writing like levying a tax on imported goods, using goods only made in Ireland, and doing away with vanity and comfort. So the whole writing wasn’t exactly satirical.


It’s funny that Swift calls the children a burden to their parents. He really believes that these children would do the best good in the community as food for others. This writing is ironic also, because no one would ever be able to take the proposal seriously. Swift says how it is melancholy to see children and beggars on the street. That for some reason, he believes the children should be put up to good use. It seems like Swift has some resentment towards the beggars on the street. This is clear when Swift says, "it is very well known that they are dying, and rotting , by cold and famine, and filth, and vermin . . . they cannot get work and consequently pine away for want of nourish.". This is when you realize that he wants to pretty much getting rid of beggars in his country. Swift ends up basically saying that rich children help advance Ireland and the poor children are nothing but a burden to everyone around them. He also compares the meal of eating to children to a meal where you are eating a pig. He elaborates on how many ways you can cook the child and the assortment of things to place in the meal. But he never mentions what the poor people end up gaining after selling their children. Do they go back to begging? Who knows? Swift obviously isn’t trying to harm anyone, he is just trying to make everyone rich. A get rich quick scheme you could say.
This story was definitely interesting, and Im sure many people who read this thought that it was actually reasonable. Swift tries to shine light on a growing problem back then in Ireland, but he does it in a way to just get people thinking. That he clearly doesn’t want people eating children, but he wants people to try and come up with ways to save their economy and communities. But over all I loved it, it was really humorous and I’m glad I got to read it.

Blog #2: Extended Reflection Journal

Hemmingway talks about confronting danger head on and the hero's always handle themselves assuredly. Romero displays these qualities many times throughout the story. One of the most obvious times when he handles his danger “head on” is when he is bullfighting. The sport that he is doing is one of the most dangerous sports there is. The bull has no remorse and doesn’t know when he hurts someone. Romero faces this bull day after day. Doing this shows him how much courage he actually has. Romero’s passion for bullfighting gives his life meaning and purpose. Romero is a figure of purity, honesty, strength, and is a hero to some. Today’s modern day hero’s have something in common with Romero: the fact that they have the ability to confront danger and can handle themselves according to the situation. Today, there are so many problems including the economy, problems with terrorism, etc… Government figures are taking these problems and trying to change society. They don’t beat around the bush about how something could maybe be wrong, or it’s not that bad. They go to the head of the problem and deal with it. It shows exactly what their intentions are, to show an example and help. A modern day hero could be, Ronald Regan. Although we don’t think of him as a “hero” like superman or Spiderman but he’s a definition of a modern day hero. Regan fought communism around the world, helped bring down the Soviet Union (USSR). Another kind of hero could be Ghandi. He was the ultimate pacifist. He knew that there were many things wrong with the world, and he dealt with some of them, but in a way a lot of hero’s weren’t use to, without violence.
In the book the Sun Also Rises, Romero shows his qualities on a daily basis. While all the men are in the bar laughing and drinking, a fight breaks out. Romero stands out of the way for a while, and then breaks up the fight simply, with calming words. He has a strange sense about him, like an abgle. He is a good looking man compared to all the other bullfighters and many take a lot of interest in him. But he doesn’t care about the fact that people admire him, because he is modest. But he is only there to do the thing he loves, bullfighting. He also is a simple man; he doesn’t care about many of the things that the other men do. He keeps his mind on his goals and sticks to them. He comes at problems from different angles then the other, he really wants to get to the root of the problem and get over it. Also, throughout the story the other men are really rowdy and loud and constantly drinking. Romero on the other hand is respectful and joins in the fun but is modest about it. He is a symbol to some people and he seems like he doesn’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about him. Romero is the kind of guy that doesn’t follow a crowd; he is always doing something different than others, like bullfighting or just plain old relaxing. Romero doesn’t want any problems or conflict; he is always there to help solve a problem or dispute. Not that he wants people to change the way they act but it seems like he wants people to look at themselves and see that how they handle things is not appropriate. Maybe the people could take a look at the way he handles things and then maybe they could avoid conflict, like he does every day. So yes, Romero could be seen as a hero in the book as well. Although he might not have done as great of things as the people I mentioned earlier but he did things that still helped others. He does it because he wants to, he wants to help.

#1: Extended Refelction Journal: Turgenev

In The Execution of Tropmann Ivan Turgenev describes his views and experience on capital punishment. Ever since Turgenev was little he was surrounded by injustice and cruelty. And this paper describes an event he attended and how his views of capital punishment affected him. His tone throughout the paper is really negative and almost anxious. The event he attended ended up being a beheading of a man named Tropmann, who was convicted of killing a family. The punishment for this crime was a public beheading. The whole even was very foreign to him, because he had never experienced anything like it. One of the reasons why he isn't comfortable at the beheading was because everyone treated it like entertainment. The citizens had to make it a point, to get up early just see this man publicly humiliated, killed. I agree with his point of view, that capital punishment, especially in public is terrible. Of course, a person convicted of a crime deserves some sort of punishment but not a public beheading.
I think his purpose for writing this was that he wants to change people’s opinions on capital punishment, or at least shed a light on how strongly he feels that it’s not justifiable. He wants people to understand that it’s a wrong thing to do. It doesn’t help anyone gain anything it just shows people a cruel world. He explains how, when he was at the execution that he could barely watch, that the whole event just made him sick. He wonders how people could go out of their way to see something like this, especially when they also bring their children. The whole event as he describes it is very gruesome. Like after Troppman’s head is cut off people are dipping their handkerchiefs in his blood, almost like they are taking a souvenir. So they now have proof that they went to the beheading. An argument that could be made is that because this is what people did in this culture they don’t know any better. They were never taught or showed anything different, so how could they know that killing a man in public isn’t getting justice, its being cruel. Turgenev has a lot of good points in this paper, but many people might not feel the way that he does. Like before, some of these people may not know any better, but what about the people that do know better? I think he wonders why these people can’t step up and try to change the way the society is. That people don’t need to be humiliated in front of tons of people just to get justice for a crime he/she may or may not have committed.