I'm beginning to question Erik Larson's decision to tell the stories of H. H. Holmes and Daniel H. Burnham side by side. As I understand it, Holmes is meant to represent the worst American has to offer, while Burnham is meant to represent the best. This juxtaposition makes sense and I find the comparisons that Larson draw between the two men to be natural and clever. However, the men and their stories are simply too far apart.

                I find myself repeatedly falling into the same pattern when reading the book. I will be reading through a Burnham segment about the World's Fair and be immersed in the events taking place. Then the chapter ends and I am taken away from the fair and to Holmes's deathtrap hotel. I will initially be aggravated as I want to see more of what is happening at the fair, but soon find myself wrapped up in Holmes's story. Then the chapter ends and I'm taken from the hotel and back to the fair, again frustrated as I now want to see more of Holmes.

                On the one hand, this is an effective story-telling technique as it will keep a reader hooked and eager to see what will happen next. On the other, this is obnoxious because I consistently find myself frustrated at the beginning of every chapter. The reason why I believe this to be the case is the simple fact that Holmes is a serial killer and Burnham is an architect. While the events of both their lives are exciting and tense, they are still extremely disconnected from one another. The World's Fair may be a link between the two men, but it is a tenuous one. The result is a story that, in my opinion, feels unfocused.

                That isn't to say that I dislike the book or want to stop reading it, I am extremely interested in finding out how things go for both men, it's just that every time a new chapter starts, it feels as though I have put down one book and picked up another and as a result, I feel like I am making very little progress in either.