VC Book Club: Devil in the White City

[j4lackey]

Eep. Me and the Art Institute building sort of have a "thing." I couldn't help myself.

Yeah, that was pretty embarrassing.

 

I'm in. I'll get the book just as soon as someone pays me fer something. Any day now.

 

Also, I'm illustrating a book of poetry and prose right now (with wood engravings), printed by a fancy, old-style local press. Don't know if it will be cost-prohibitive yet, but I saw where someone spoke of doing a poetry book for VC Book Club (Is anyone making a shirt for this yet?), so I'll find out when it'll be released and how much, in case anyone is interested. It's about Abe Lincoln (he was a president or something).

[gogo]

Also, I'm illustrating a book of poetry and prose right now (with wood engravings), printed by a fancy, old-style local press. Don't know if it will be cost-prohibitive yet, but I saw where someone spoke of doing a poetry book for VC Book Club (Is anyone making a shirt for this yet?), so I'll find out when it'll be released and how much, in case anyone is interested. It's about Abe Lincoln (he was a president or something).

President of what?

 

Johnny, that sounds great to me! Definitely keep us posted.

 

As for shirts... I was the only person in my last book club who ever actually finished the book (just one of the reasons that we no longer meet ). For my birthday a few years ago, one of my friends had a shirt made for me that says "Book Club Nerd"; and on the back "or... is that redundant?"

 

Anyway, I'd always be in for another J. Lackey original! I'd love to commission a design; if this thing makes it past another book or two, let's talk turkey. (There's no turkey avatar! How have we made it through all these Thanksgivings without one?!?)

[VenusStopsTrain2]

I bought the book today...YAY

now to find time when i'm not working/sleeping to read it

[kidsmoke]

Oh, I've always meant to read this! I'm in as soon as I latch onto a copy!

[Three dollars and 63 cents]

I'm about 50 pages into it. I'm hoping to get enough read this weekend that I can jump into the discussion when it gets started.

[LouieB]

Oops..I keep forgetting to get this and read it. Strangely I don't have a copy.

 

edit- I just ordered a $2.50 copy through Amazon; guess I will have to read it now.

 

 

 

LouieB

[skyflynn]

I read this a while back and while my memory isn't perfect, I'm never short of opinions.

[OOO]

I read this a while back and while my memory isn't perfect, I'm never short of opinions.

 

Ditto.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Holmes/Palin '08

[VenusStopsTrain2]

40 pages through this morning...gonna try some more now...

[Edie]

So should we consider halfway the end of part two or part three? I'm close to the end of part two now.

 

EDIT: Now that I am looking at the actual book, it should be the end of part two -- page 231

[gogo]

I'm late getting here today, so I was kind of hoping that some of you eager-beavers would have started discussing away without me!

 

OK, let's get to it, people. I don't think this needs to be a structured discussion, necessarily, but here are a few questions/observations to get us started. Everyone should just feel free to dive in what whatever you'd all like to discuss, though.

 

1. Some friends of mine, history majors, said that they had a hard time taking this book seriously as "real history". The author has obviously documented a lot, but to the extent that he's getting into the mind of Holmes, he's had to take a whole lot of liberties, too. Does this detract from the author's credibility for you in other ways, or are those leaps acceptable for a serious historian?

 

2. Could these two stories have been told separately? I thought that Holmes' story was well-placed within the context of what was going on in the world around him, but does Holmes' story add anything to the history of the fair? I think I might have been just as intrigued by the White City without the Devil. Anyone else?

 

3. I love the author's style, I think there are a lot of scenes where the writing really propels you forward, where he creates a great sense of urgency about the fair's progress. One thing that drives me nuts, though, is the "but what he did not know was how this decision would come back to bite him in the ass..." set-up. I'd love to see an author come up with some other way of letting the reader know "this is important! remember it for later!" without using that construction. Just a little pet peeve of mine.

 

So, have it at, folks!

 

Oh, and how about getting through the end of Part 3 by next Monday?

[kimcatch22]

Some friends of mine, history majors, said that they had a hard time taking this book seriously as "real history". The author has obviously documented a lot, but to the extent that he's getting into the mind of Holmes, he's had to take a whole lot of liberties, too. Does this detract from the author's credibility for you in other ways, or are those leaps acceptable for a serious historian?

 

I'll take a stab at the first question, gogo! My response takes into consideration the notes and sources at the end of the book plus something Larson said when I saw him speak last year, so if you consider those spoilers, skip over my post.

 

*possible spoiler alert*(if you think end notes can be spoiled!)

 

 

Popular history and academic history read as very different things, but as long as they draw from primary sources (as opposed to popular history just "making things up" or regurgitating secondary sources) both are "real history." The difference in a historical text being a bestseller versus being something read mostly by the professional community is how it is written. (Come take a look at my assigned readings if you need proof! ) Unless you're studying history at a professional level, you're probably not inclined to process dry academic texts. And the general population is equipped to handle a history that reads like a novel: it's the format we have the most experience with. So delivering academic history in a more accessible narrative format is great news, in my history-loving eyes.

 

Larson's narrative style does not detract from his credibility. He draws heavily from primary sources, including Holmes's journals. In his notes, he elaborates on the anguish he experienced over how to portray scenes in which there were no witnesses and discusses how he came to terms with an acceptable approach, drawing inspiration from other disciplines to create what evidence suggests is a faithful recreation. I'll leave it at that so as to keep "spoilers" to a minimum -- you can read the notes for yourself. And I can't remember for sure, but I believe when I saw him speak he said that anything in quotations came directly from a primary source. He may have inserted it as dialog, but it was an actual written quote from one of the book's players and still exists somewhere in a library or archives.

 

Any "leaps" he makes are an acceptable part of telling the story. That's all that history is, really: names and dates strung together by leaps and deductions (yet not even names and dates are certain, sometimes!) Objectivity in historical study, much as we'd like it to exist, doesn't. Omnisciency also does not exist. In that sense, all historians must make leaps like Larson's. History as we remember it from our school days may sound like fact, but it actually is an exercise in interpretation. As interpretation, it is open to revision, reframing, and fresh interpretation as new questions arise. This is what Larson does in this book by weaving together the Holmes and Burnham stories to examine the greater possibilities of human nature -- he examines the events in the book as a way to answer his own historical questions.

 

Finally, a side note: I've talked to quite a few history profs about this book. The general consensus is that this is a strong work told in an easily-accessible and appealing way -- and they're all jealous that Larson did it first.

[IATTBYB]

First off, I deserve 40 lashes with a wet noodle or at least an Incomplete because I am only starting Part II at this point. But I did read the book a couple years ago so I am "qualified" to throw my 2 cents in.

 

Could the story of the White City and the "Devil" been told in two seperate books? Sure, but I don't think that it would not have generated the publicity that this final product did and would have resulted in far fewer people reading (and most likely learning for the first time) about either story.

 

One of the things that I have always questioned is whether Holmes would have built his "Hotel" with all of its special rooms even if there was no fair, given the fact that Chicago was experiencing a population and immigration boom at the end of the 19th century. I question if the fair really is a driving factor in luring his victims to the city. The man is clearly a murderous psychopath and he would have carried out his awful deeds, fair or no fair.

 

Also, on a personal note, despite the fact that Holmes and the Unabomber have ties to the University of Michigan, not all of the alums of that fine institution (me included) are homicidal maniacs.

[jimmyjimmy]

1.The author has obviously documented a lot, but to the extent that he's getting into the mind of Holmes, he's had to take a whole lot of liberties, too. Does this detract from the author's credibility for you in other ways

 

 

Larson's narrative style does not detract from his credibility. He draws heavily from primary sources, including Holmes's journals.

And I can't remember for sure, but I believe when I saw him speak he said that anything in quotations came directly from a primary source. He may have inserted it as dialog, but it was an actual written quote from one of the book's players and still exists somewhere in a library or archives.

 

Well said.

He mentions the quotes/source material in the preface also.

So for me that goes a long way in capturing an idea, or the essence, of the individual's character, motivations and demeanor within the story.

 

2. Could these two stories have been told separately? I thought that Holmes' story was well-placed within the context of what was going on in the world around him, but does Holmes' story add anything to the history of the fair? I think I might have been just as intrigued by the White City without the Devil. Anyone else?

 

They could have, but they are inexplicably linked. Although you had a situation within a densely populated area growing exponentially due to the influx of people moving into the area the Fair, in ways we probably can't really wrap our heads around now days, amplified that condition considerably. Taking into consideration the chaos generated by all these new people, businesses and workers in a city that's already failing on some level to address issues of criminal activities and disappearances (bit of a stretch here...I know) the Fair enabled Holmes to kill on the level he did. To MJHutch's point "would he have built the Hotel" maybe not. But Holmes was cunning, probably brilliant. He would've certainly taken steps, maybe on some lesser scale, to satiate himself. So if not for the Fair, not for the Hotel/Castle, maybe not the same volume of murder, but murder still.

 

3. I'd love to see an author come up with some other way of letting the reader know "this is important! remember it for later!" without using that construction. Just a little pet peeve of mine.

It's cheesy isn't it. But I'm a Noir fan so I kind of dig it in a geeky "Ooo wait until next weeks installment of Straight Razor Persuasion! kind of way.

 

 

Oh, and how about getting through the end of Part 3 by next Monday?

Done.

 

 

Here's the thing I love about the book and Larson's style. The "asides". Indicative probably of someone who's inclined towards trivia anyway. The origins of Samuel Francis Smith's "America"...the influence of the Fair on American culture and infrastructure (Alternating vs. Direct Current. A BIG fav. of mine as I've worked for GE for 16 years and take some subversive pleasure in seeing Edison's push for DC undercut by Westinghouse).

 

Of particular interest within Parts I and II.

I'm always kind of taken aback at the animosity displayed between the different regions of the country during this period and the way in which it presents itself. Certainly there's established tension due to the war and the obligatory distrust and ignorance that comes with rural v. urban and the communicative capabilities of the age. Still, some of the colorful references to Easterners and New Yorkers in particular....very colorful and full of vitriol.

Cool stuff.

[Central Scrutinizer]

I'm late getting here today, so I was kind of hoping that some of you eager-beavers would have started discussing away without me!

 

OK, let's get to it, people. I don't think this needs to be a structured discussion, necessarily, but here are a few questions/observations to get us started. Everyone should just feel free to dive in what whatever you'd all like to discuss, though.

 

1. Some friends of mine, history majors, said that they had a hard time taking this book seriously as "real history". The author has obviously documented a lot, but to the extent that he's getting into the mind of Holmes, he's had to take a whole lot of liberties, too. Does this detract from the author's credibility for you in other ways, or are those leaps acceptable for a serious historian?

 

He uses the "new journalism" approach ala Tom Wolfe in trying to get inside characters heads -- both effectively and ineffectively. He gets bogged down and hammers you over the head a good bit, to the point it's like "O.K. we get it, the body's in the trunk!" He does a great job with Holmes in a "less is more" approach to his cold, caluclating nature.

 

2. Could these two stories have been told separately? I thought that Holmes' story was well-placed within the context of what was going on in the world around him, but does Holmes' story add anything to the history of the fair? I think I might have been just as intrigued by the White City without the Devil. Anyone else?

 

I don't think so. All all the other side stories (men *and* women) display the themes of each character chasing a dream and their ability/inability to realize it, the obstacles that they face (a nut job, Chicago weather, bureaucracy), and what they sacrifice in their pursuits. From the ideological women who come to chicago without knowing why and thereby making themselves susceptible to Holmes, the workers and sightseers who come to Jackson Park without knowing what they're actually seeing, the visions of the arcitects, Ferris, the midway kid (Bloom?). Some fascinating stuff.

 

3. I love the author's style, I think there are a lot of scenes where the writing really propels you forward, where he creates a great sense of urgency about the fair's progress. One thing that drives me nuts, though, is the "but what he did not know was how this decision would come back to bite him in the ass..." set-up. I'd love to see an author come up with some other way of letting the reader know "this is important! remember it for later!" without using that construction. Just a little pet peeve of mine.

Like I said in 1, he hits and misses. He's a little (in some cases WAY) too "nudge, nudge; wink, wink" about macabre elements. He hammers, as you say on not as much foreshadowing, as beating a dead horse (which may have been the one that floated up when the Chicago River backed up again). He is at his best when he exercises a "less is more approach." Just a quick detail noted at the end of one of his sections.

 

The chapter focuses on the characters works well most of the time -- although in a few cases I dreaded the end of the latest chapter on the expo because you knew you were going to be exposed to Holmes again. The sections helps break up the reading and make it a lot lighter.

 

This book is obviously incredibly researched; and think in some cases, his little breakups are organized as much by sources and by the action and characters involved. It is a tightrope to walk between fact and prose to bring the facts to life. He brings a story 110 years into the past, gives it some vocabulary and dialogue and feel of two centuries ago, but brings it into focus enough that you're pulled along and can makes connections of that was then/this is now.

[yermom]

I enjoy all of the little bonus historical bits like the AC/DC competition too. There are so many little things like that in the book that make me want to hop on the internet and read more about it, little mini-stories in the big story which are fascinating in their own right.

 

As far as the "could the book be white city without the devil?" discussion goes, I definitely find what I think of as "the Burnham bits" fascinating but I really look forward to when the story goes back to Holmes. I don't usually read true crime or horror/suspense stuff but I'm really compelled by his story and anxious to find out just how heinous his crimes will be by the end of the book.

 

I'm kind of anal about only reading books where I can learn something factual (exceptions being major award winners with a lot of buzz around them like "The Road") and I feel like I'm really getting a lot out of this book. I've always been interested in architecture but am mostly a noob to the subject. I've been taking little notes about all of the buildings so I can dig around the internet for pictures of the structures described in the book. Olmsted is fascinating too...I didn't really know about him before, never really thought about who might have designed Central Park.

 

Great book pick, folks! I'm digging it immensely!

[IATTBYB]

I'm always kind of taken aback at the animosity displayed between the different regions of the country during this period and the way in which it presents itself. Certainly there's established tension due to the war and the obligatory distrust and ignorance that comes with rural v. urban and the communicative capabilities of the age. Still, some of the colorful references to Easterners and New Yorkers in particular....very colorful and full of vitriol.

Cool stuff.

Don't forget about the animosity amongst Midwesterners as well. Early on in the book when Larsen is discussing the bidding process and all of the cities who submitted bids, the St. Louis bid was basically mocked by all concern, including the Chicago group. Is this the genesis of the "strained" relationship between the two cities, or is this just a contiuation of an earlier, historical rivalry? Anyone in St. Louis care to chime in?

[kimcatch22]

Here's the thing I love about the book and Larson's style. The "asides". Indicative probably of someone who's inclined towards trivia anyway. The origins of Samuel Francis Smith's "America"...the influence of the Fair on American culture and infrastructure (Alternating vs. Direct Current. A BIG fav. of mine as I've worked for GE for 16 years and take some subversive pleasure in seeing Edison's push for DC undercut by Westinghouse).

The trivia is very cool and helps bring the events to life as well as place them in context with things readers may be more familiar with. Scattering trivia throughout the text illuminates history and I feel might convert people who previously thought history is stuffy (wishful thinking? ) Like llynn said, the trivia gave me a lot of inspiration to go out and research this era.

 

Also, when I saw him speak, Larson confessed to being a trivia nut. So good call!

[kimcatch22]

Don't forget about the animosity amongst Midwesterners as well. Early on in the book when Larsen is discussing the bidding process and all of the cities who submitted bids, the St. Louis bid was basically mocked by all concern, including the Chicago group. Is this the genesis of the "strained" relationship between the two cities, or is this just a contiuation of an earlier, historical rivalry? Anyone in St. Louis care to chime in?

It goes back at least to the Kansas-Nebraka Act of 1854, when Stephen Douglas stole St. Louis's thunder by proposing the eastern terminus of a transcontinental railroad in Chicago. Chicago is what it is today because of Douglas's eventual success in getting us the major Midwestern rail terminal.

 

edit: I am from Chicago.

[jimmyjimmy]

Olmsted is fascinating too...I didn't really know about him before, never really thought about who might have designed Central Park.

Olmstead is the one whom I most drawn to this time around (second time through the book). Probably due to having spent a great deal of time in Central Park over the last couple of years and from really trying to recognize what's still evident from the origins and what's changed.

And he's such a tormented man. His conscience, his integrity and vision. The fragile physicality. Really makes you appreciate the suffering people had to deal with, especially in his case juxtaposed against his relentless schedule.

 

Your gonna love part III.

[gogo]

Especially since reading this book, I'm a huge fan of Olmstead. The sections about him and Burnham are just so much more fascinating to me than the Holmes stuff. I guess after watching so many seasons of Law & Order, I'm not surprised at one man's capacity for cruelty. But to see what these people accomplished on the positive side, seems like the really amazing thing to me! I can't think of anything that could come together in this way today.

 

I'm also reading a history of the modern Olympics, and there was something in there about Pierre de Coubertin attending the Columbian Exposition, and being so impressed with the city that he wanted to hold the 1904 Olympics in Chicago. They ended up in St. Louis instead, in conjunction with another World' Fair there.

[VenusStopsTrain2]

Ok I misread so I have part 1 done..but I'm reading as much as possible daily to try to catch up..plus this is an interesting book so it's not too hard.

 

1. No I find the historical parts of this book to be quite interesting and I like that he quotes things that were documented. I'm still trying to figure out where he got some quotes from...anyone know what Ibid means? I like that he weaves the story with as much history as possible but gets into their heads to tell the stories. It's easier to follow and it makes it not seem so dry.

 

2. No not to keep them interesting as well as allowing you to really see the full story at once. I imagine if I had to read 2 books about each character it would not be as easy for me to go back and forth between the characters within the timeline. I am learning a lot about the Fair as well so reading about the architecture as well as another story that was going on at the same time is intriguing and it allows me to look forward to what is going on 'on the other side of town' or with a different person.

 

3. I agree, because it makes me feel like I need to find post it notes and attempt to keep track of those things.

 

I have to admit though that a few times I wish there was a time line with dates alongside it for critical moments such as the various activities of the architecture as well as the length of time it took for them to decide on a location for the fair.

[Central Scrutinizer]

anyone know what Ibid means?

Basically means "same as previous reference."

[turtlegirl37]

I'm about 2/3 thru the book now, so I'm making steady progress. I am exclusively a non-fiction reader, and I am enjoying the book very much (perhaps enjoying is not the correct word). First, Larson may take some liberties with the facts (I think he would have to) but, as a psychologist, I must say that his representation of Holmes' pathology rings true. Scary scary scary. Second, at least for me, the Devil and the White City must go together. I think reading just about Holmes and his evil ways would be too much for me to tolerate; on the other hand, I'm not sure I could stay interested in a book that was ONLY about the fair. Finally, the tensions between the different regions of the country should not surprise us. The same dynamic still exists between blue state/red state, rural/suburban/urban, and so on.