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.