How does he do it?

The two completely different stories that make up Erik Larson’s DWC seem as though they would create the issue of organization. As I discussed in a previous blog, the stories are told intermittently. A section of Holmes will be followed by a section of Burnham. These chunks of the story are then mixed with chucks of, historical context, Olmstead, and other stories that have become woven into the plot, either having to do with the Chicago World’s Fair, or Burnham, or with Chicago in general.

The task of creating unity between these starkly contrasting scenes was probably a major issue when Larson was working with the organization and construction of his ideas of the story. Although the stories all go together due to their location and time frame, it could have been difficult to decide how to present them in a way that doesn’t obstruct the flow of the narrative, or the reader’s understanding of the plot. Several contributing factors allow for the success of these mini – chapters.

1.       Suspense is created through the use of cliff hangers at the ends of each section- instead of following a Holmes scene to the end, the short section will seem to terminate in the middle of the action, causing suspense, and drawing the reader in. If for nothing else, the reader will continue reading in the hopes that this scene will play out after the chunk about Burnham.
2.   Many of the sections end with sentences that draw the reader in. For example, the use of a sentence such as, “For Marion and the boys, it promised to be a dream journey; for Olmstead it became something rather more dark” leaves questions unanswered, creating suspense and tension.
3. Unity is created through Larson’s inclusion of one story in the narration of another. Time is given in relation to the story – for example, Larson will state something like – ‘while Holmes was terminating the lives of both his unborn child and its mother, Olmstead was planting the most beautiful landscape Chicago had ever seen’. By intertwining the stories, and creating overlap, Larson is able to maintain his audience’s focus, without creating confusion by thrusting them into and out of multiple plot lines  expecting them to remember every detail of the previous sections.

I’m really glad that I chose to read DWC, because the format of jumping back and forth between two viewpoints is something that I am faced with in my Long haul topic, and it is interesting to see how Larson was able to achieve unity. It might not work for me, but DWC definitely shows that two stories can exist as one, and can be read together without mass confusion – IF done correctly.

Style, Imagery, Language

I am really digging the style of writing used by Larson. As I continue to get deeper into the plot, I am beginning to notice some trends that are really interesting. Everyone knows the phrase that has been drilled into our heads about how to tell a story – “show don’t tell.” And Larson does just that. Instead of explaining exactly what is going on in a scene, Larson paints the picture (sorry I know that’s cliché). This is interesting because it begs the question – How can Larson paint a scene that occurred before he was born? As gathered from phrases like, ‘Olmstead later wrote’ etc, it is clear that Larson uses letters to furnish his stories with dialogue and views of the characters of DWC.

I’m guessing that creative license is what allows Larson to vividly paint scenes such as his murder of Julia Connor under the guise of performing an abortion of their child before wedlock. Without the descriptive language and vivid imagery, DWC wouldn't be considered a work of CREATIVE nonfiction. Instead, it would be dull, and read like a history textbook.

 Yuck.

Another interesting technique used by Larson is the fact that sometimes, he doesn’t explicitly state something, but we are able to understand what is going on as a result of subtle hints. In this way, Larson leads us to a truth, rather than spelling it out to the reader. Possibly, this could be a result of Larson’s commitment to the truth, and as a piece of nonfiction, whether creative or not, Larson is unable to state things that aren’t proven by his research. Other possible reasons for this technique could be to lead the reader into making their own judgments, to foreshadow future events, or giving the audience the benefit of the doubt (giving the audience a chance to prove that they don’t need Larson to hold their hand and explain every minute detail to get the picture).

Especially after doing some interviews for my long haul topic, these techniques makes a lot of sense. Even though you are only presented with facts, or with quotes to use, there is much more truth than what is physically said. You can get more out of the interview than just a few usable quotes. In this way, Larson isn't falsifying scenes. He is taking the information he has gathered, and brings it to life, something that I will definitely consider, and take into account when I am writing my long haul paper. 

Damn...

I spoke to soon. In My last post, I went on and on about how I was craving for something interesting to happen. I babbled about how I wanted the story to stop plateauing and get to work. I was tired with the only problem being that the architects couldn't work together and all that nonsense.

But I was wrong.

Ending Part one, I am left with a little sadness. Larson finally brings about death in his story, however, it wasn't who I was suspecting. All the while, I was waiting for Holmes to begin killing, attacking harmless women in the Chicago area. I was especially expecting him to do terrible things, what with Larson's mention of Jack the Ripper earlier in the story. However, I was not expecting that Root, friend and colleague of Burnham, would be one of the first to go.

Throughout the story, his health did seem in question. Occasionally he'd miss meetings due to tiredness and what not, but the fact that he was taken from their lives from pneumonia is just terrible, especially looking at the disease today. Pneumonia isn't even that deadly now, but back then, it could be fatal. I think the worst part of it all is that Root seemed to be getting better, as though he was getting over the disease.

I think the way Larson informed the reader that Root had died was so blunt that I almost didn't believe it myself. The section reads, "As Burnham talked with [Root's wife], a relative also entered the room. She told them Root was dead." After reading that, I had to go back to read it again because I thought I had missed something. The six word sentence "She told them Root was dead" was so blunt and in your face that it almost felt unbelievable, as if this was some T.V. drama where they say Root is dead but he comes back five episodes later to shock the other characters, only faking his death for some greater purpose.

As Part one comes to a close, and the architects seem to have come together, this story should continue on its rise up, putting all of its plateaus in its past.

Waiting

   This story is constantly keeping me waiting.  It was as if Larson said, "Let's take this story, this very interesting story, and stretch it out as far as we can."  I'm not saying that giving us a lot of detail is a bad thing, but there are moments where this story can somewhat drag.
    Take for example the numerous sections where Burnham is attempting to get all the other architects together.  It takes Larson page after page after page, each with a few sections to let the reader know that the architects are still unsure whether or not they want to take on the project.  Not only that, but then he goes on to describe how Burnham forgot to ask architects from Chicago if they wanted to join the project, so then Larson feels the need to describe the process in which Burnham apologizes to them and then asks a select few to come on to the project.  The small bits of detail that Larson gives us is very interesting, however, there are some moments when that information is not needed, creating a slight dragging feeling in the story.  
      Let's be honest, we all are waiting for Holmes to kill someone, which has yet to happen and is really starting to change my feelings for this book.  It's as if I'm constantly waiting for the story to take off, and with each section, it just keep plateauing.  Holmes begins to create kilns and sound-proof rooms, but then nothing comes of them.  Larson seems to be trying to hard to build suspense, and you could say its working, but it's also becoming slightly annoying.  I enjoy reading as much as the next guy, but let's get this story rolling. 
      Things finally seem to get going with the introduction of Icilius "Ned" Conner and his family.  He has a wife, Julia, a daughter, Pearl, and his sister Gertie, all of whom work for Holmes and live in his apartment.  The attention that Larson pays to the relationship between the ladies and Holmes makes it seem as though something dangerous is about to come.  He writes about how they are showered with gifts and the customers look toward Ned with pity as if to say "Sorry you're losing your loved ones to the boss."  Then, within the next page, we're back to discussing the architect group.  Giving me some danger, some violence, death, anything Larson, otherwise, your book will be the death of me.

Building Suspense

The suspense continues to build.  

Burnham is building the team of architects.

 At first, nobody wants to help; they feel that it is too large a goal to complete such a grand Fair in such a short amount of time. And the architects from the north aren’t as invested as the architects from Chicago. What difference does it make to them, if it isn’t their city’s pride on the line?

 Olmstead is building his vision of the scenic landscape of the World’s Fair.

The workers are building the Fair from the ground up. The city is building anticipation. Will the Fair be a success? Will the Fair be better than France’s World Fair? Will the location, Jackson Park, be too unsuitable to construction? Will there be enough money? Will there be enough time?

Holmes is building an empire. 

He is building his revenue – continuing to find new ways to keep his debtors away, slyly selling his debt to his business partner and stealing the man’s wife. He is also building his “dream home” which is more like a torture chamber – I talked about it in my last blog post. A kiln large enough to fit a human body? Secret chambers? A soundproof room? All covered in the secrecy of being rooming for the ladies he is hoping to employ in the businesses downstairs.

Everything continues to build, and I feel like I am never going to get to the good stuff. 

Are there going to be difficulties with the buildings? Will they sink into the mud? Will the fair be a success (okay so I should probably know the outcome of the fair, it being US History and all, but you guys will have to spare me, at least this once. History isn’t really my thing…) This makes sense though, as the story takes place over a couple of years, and it gives a sense of the apprehension and complications that the Chicago citizens had to deal with. The World’s Fair was a big deal, and there are a lot of decisions, roadblocks, etc that went into its construction. Also, because Larson’s Devil in the White City is a two-for-one-special (telling the stories of both Holmes and Burnham) it would make sense that the story would take twice as long to unfold. This anticipation, although somewhat frustrating, is also proof that the book is worth reading. It proves that I am invested in the plot, and want to know more. ASAP.