The World's Fair changed American in more ways than imaginable. The Fair was a huge turning point for technology of the time and social and political aspects of American life. It changed what many other nations and people thought that America could create and accomplish. It was unlike anything else ever seen in America. The Fair helped America on its way to becoming a huge world power and leading the world in industrial and economic change and success. The fair changed how the rest of the world saw America as a country and as a world power. The fair influenced American and the rest of the world for generations to come, not only the few decades after the actual Fair. The World's Colombian Exposition established a Neo-Classical revival in Chicago and across America, thus changing American ideals and creating a entirely new way to view America. This global phenomenon of a fair changed culture, fashion, food, transportation and the ways in which tourists viewed architecture, and how these building defied gravity to create a whole new world to those who visited the fair. The fair was so new to everyone, that it baffled and wowed, and left many awestruck and excited. The buildings and new architecture of the fair helped to create this image of America as well, including the Ferris Wheel, and Thomas Edison's light tower of colorful choreographed lights dancing to the music. The exhibition halls housed new inventions and appliances for the home and farm, many of them powered by electricity changing the way home and farm worked. The new forms of electricity found at the fair were amazing and new and exciting, including, but not limited to electric incubators for chicken eggs, electric chairs for executions, an electric sidewalk, an early fax machine that sent pictures over telegraph lines, electric irons, sewing machines and laundry machines, and Thomas Edison's Kinetoscope, the first moving pictures. The new inventions of the time pulled in visitors and customers, leaving more and more profit for the fair than anyone could've imagined. Food was also a big part of the fair, leading to the creation of many well known brands of today, and common foods for the 1800's and still today, including gums, hamburger, cream of wheat, quaker oats, and shredded wheat. Aunt Jemima and Heinz were also new to the era, and created quite a frenzy of food madness. Many architects, such as Frank Lloyd Wright, and of course Burnham and Root, were involved in the production of the fair, leaving more room for improvement in architecture and such. The many visitors of the fair throughout its existence saw sights unlike anything else, and truly witnessed America change and grow socially. Buffalo Bill Cody, Thomas Edison, Susan B. Anthony were all greatly influenced by the creation and execution of the fair, making their ideas and beliefs readily available to the public eye for scrutiny, and helped them gain fame and popularity. The tourists, architects, city dwellers, and social activists of the time truly saw the change brought to America by the great World's Fair of the late 1800's.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Devil In The White City Blog 3
Extended Reflection Journal: 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?
Devil In The White City Blog 2
Extended Reflection Journal: 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?
Throughout history, America has been trying to outshine and outdo everyone else, but along with numerous other countries as well. From The Imperial Age, to modern times, Americans always want something bigger and better and just plain and simply: more than anyone else. Nowadays, American's are always trying to one up their neighbors with a nicer lawn or a bigger car, or maybe trying to get a better grade than the student next to them, or trying to earn the most money. It's the American way of life, and it always has been. America is an arrogant country, always showing off what they've got, and not being afraid to show it. The World's Fair was just another example of arrogance and boasting the newest, best, most advanced technology, style, culture, trends and so on and so forth. The Fair was built on jealousy and materialism, showcasing America's strength. The World's fair introduced a new found obsession with becoming a world superpower in America in the 19th century. Arrogance is an overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors; directly relating to the fair. The fair was only installed and designed in order to project America as a wondrous country better than that of the former Paris exposition. It was supposed to be designed bigger and better than anything in existence no matter of cost or physical or earthly limitations. The fair was completely and one hundred percent a display of American arrogance during the 19th century. It was used throughout its running as an act to draw in and hypnotize tourists to believe and register America as a world power; the best, and only, of its kind. In order to reach this level of greatness no cost limit was implicated, displaying the arrogance and pride America soaked in and developed during the worlds fair construction and exposition. America wanted to reach the title of number one, outdoing the competition Paris displayed. This simple act of want, greed, and need for material popularity gained America arrogance not easily forgotten. Arrogance must be displayed in order to gain the superiority America strove for when wanting to build and construct a beautiful, amazing world exposition sure to draw in, capture, and shock tourists and business men from all over ready and willing to watch America sky rocket to stardom. The project was built purely for boasting and bragging rights, and to leave other nations behind in the metaphorical dust. The fair's amount of work and power required to function, of course will engender a darker, destructive parallel. Anything that takes this much work, with such a good outcome of course has to have a downside, or a downfall. THe whole novel contrasts the White City and the Black City, leaving a parallel of bad to go with the massive amounts off good that came out of the Fair. All good things have a bad side, including the magnificent World's Fair of the late 1800's; the work Burnham and the other architects put into it was incredible, while others like Holmes, were on cruel murdering sprees throughout the city, leaving a bad taste. The Fair was a fantastic event, all the while creating a bad effect.
Throughout history, America has been trying to outshine and outdo everyone else, but along with numerous other countries as well. From The Imperial Age, to modern times, Americans always want something bigger and better and just plain and simply: more than anyone else. Nowadays, American's are always trying to one up their neighbors with a nicer lawn or a bigger car, or maybe trying to get a better grade than the student next to them, or trying to earn the most money. It's the American way of life, and it always has been. America is an arrogant country, always showing off what they've got, and not being afraid to show it. The World's Fair was just another example of arrogance and boasting the newest, best, most advanced technology, style, culture, trends and so on and so forth. The Fair was built on jealousy and materialism, showcasing America's strength. The World's fair introduced a new found obsession with becoming a world superpower in America in the 19th century. Arrogance is an overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors; directly relating to the fair. The fair was only installed and designed in order to project America as a wondrous country better than that of the former Paris exposition. It was supposed to be designed bigger and better than anything in existence no matter of cost or physical or earthly limitations. The fair was completely and one hundred percent a display of American arrogance during the 19th century. It was used throughout its running as an act to draw in and hypnotize tourists to believe and register America as a world power; the best, and only, of its kind. In order to reach this level of greatness no cost limit was implicated, displaying the arrogance and pride America soaked in and developed during the worlds fair construction and exposition. America wanted to reach the title of number one, outdoing the competition Paris displayed. This simple act of want, greed, and need for material popularity gained America arrogance not easily forgotten. Arrogance must be displayed in order to gain the superiority America strove for when wanting to build and construct a beautiful, amazing world exposition sure to draw in, capture, and shock tourists and business men from all over ready and willing to watch America sky rocket to stardom. The project was built purely for boasting and bragging rights, and to leave other nations behind in the metaphorical dust. The fair's amount of work and power required to function, of course will engender a darker, destructive parallel. Anything that takes this much work, with such a good outcome of course has to have a downside, or a downfall. THe whole novel contrasts the White City and the Black City, leaving a parallel of bad to go with the massive amounts off good that came out of the Fair. All good things have a bad side, including the magnificent World's Fair of the late 1800's; the work Burnham and the other architects put into it was incredible, while others like Holmes, were on cruel murdering sprees throughout the city, leaving a bad taste. The Fair was a fantastic event, all the while creating a bad effect.
Devil In The White City Blog 1
Extended Reflection Journal (BLOG) : In the note "Evils Imminent," Erik Larson writes "Beneath the gore and smoke and loam, this book is about the evanescence of life, and why some men choose to fill their brief allotment of time engaging the impossible, others in the manufacture of sorrow" [xi]. What does the book reveal about "the ineluctable conflict between good and evil"? What is the essential difference between men like Daniel Burnham and Henry H. Holmes? Are they alike in any way?
In Larson's factual story of the world's fair, he compares the good and the bad of Chicago; the good being Burnham, and the bad being Holmes. The two men are compared in the story, living in the "gore and smoke and loam" of dirty, 1800's Chicago. Burnham loving architecture, and Holmes loving... murder? Holmes and Burnham couldn't be more different, yet alike at the same time. This short “note” helps readers to determine the main idea of conflict present within the novels context. Holmes and Burnham are full of passion and precision, pertaining to murder and architecture, respectively. Both men achieve greatness and fame through this precision and perfection of their skills, for good and bad. Burnham is a fantastic architect, while Holmes is a perfect cold blooded murderer. Both of the two men use their amazing skills to manipulate and earn what they want in life, and to live the way they would like to. Holmes builds his perfect, trustworthy character in order to cover up and fool others, but is a murderer deep down, killing all throughout Chicago and leaving no traces. He perfected his craft of killing, and fools all; he comes off as a perfectly trustworthy and honest man to all he meets. His precision only leads to easier murders and quieter deaths for the people of Chicago. Holmes is the epitome of evil in this White City. Burnham, on the other hand, is always striving for good - and making everything bigger and better. He uses his skills to make the fair, and his city a better, more beautiful place. Buurnham only wants to help and create and improve, unlike Holmes, ruthlessly murdering everywhere. Burnham strives for good, over evil, in his White City. According to Larson, both men are “unusually adept at their chosen skills," leaving room only for perfection among their skills. The two men are so different, yet so alike - they both put so much passion into everything they do. The two men never meet, yet are so connected through The World's Fair, such an important event in history. The men embody America of the late 1800's and the World's Fair, exactly the way America was. The contrast of the men is shown in Larson's writing throughout the story, with factual events and the differences of “Good and Evil, daylight and darkness, the White City and the Black." Larson shows similarities and differences in the two men when it comes to their passions and how much they put into what they do, but contrasts with their idea of perfection, and the extreme differences in their talents. WIth the two men constantly being compared throughout the book, Larson does a great job of showing "the ineluctable conflict between good and evil" and how truly differently similar the men are. While Burnham spends all his time "engaging the impossible," and Holmes "in the manufacture of sorrow", the two men both apply great care and precision to their talents and the work they do.
In Larson's factual story of the world's fair, he compares the good and the bad of Chicago; the good being Burnham, and the bad being Holmes. The two men are compared in the story, living in the "gore and smoke and loam" of dirty, 1800's Chicago. Burnham loving architecture, and Holmes loving... murder? Holmes and Burnham couldn't be more different, yet alike at the same time. This short “note” helps readers to determine the main idea of conflict present within the novels context. Holmes and Burnham are full of passion and precision, pertaining to murder and architecture, respectively. Both men achieve greatness and fame through this precision and perfection of their skills, for good and bad. Burnham is a fantastic architect, while Holmes is a perfect cold blooded murderer. Both of the two men use their amazing skills to manipulate and earn what they want in life, and to live the way they would like to. Holmes builds his perfect, trustworthy character in order to cover up and fool others, but is a murderer deep down, killing all throughout Chicago and leaving no traces. He perfected his craft of killing, and fools all; he comes off as a perfectly trustworthy and honest man to all he meets. His precision only leads to easier murders and quieter deaths for the people of Chicago. Holmes is the epitome of evil in this White City. Burnham, on the other hand, is always striving for good - and making everything bigger and better. He uses his skills to make the fair, and his city a better, more beautiful place. Buurnham only wants to help and create and improve, unlike Holmes, ruthlessly murdering everywhere. Burnham strives for good, over evil, in his White City. According to Larson, both men are “unusually adept at their chosen skills," leaving room only for perfection among their skills. The two men are so different, yet so alike - they both put so much passion into everything they do. The two men never meet, yet are so connected through The World's Fair, such an important event in history. The men embody America of the late 1800's and the World's Fair, exactly the way America was. The contrast of the men is shown in Larson's writing throughout the story, with factual events and the differences of “Good and Evil, daylight and darkness, the White City and the Black." Larson shows similarities and differences in the two men when it comes to their passions and how much they put into what they do, but contrasts with their idea of perfection, and the extreme differences in their talents. WIth the two men constantly being compared throughout the book, Larson does a great job of showing "the ineluctable conflict between good and evil" and how truly differently similar the men are. While Burnham spends all his time "engaging the impossible," and Holmes "in the manufacture of sorrow", the two men both apply great care and precision to their talents and the work they do.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Extra Credit Blog
Satire is a form of writing in which the author uses humor, and ridicules the subject to make light of it, and to make it humorous. Satire can be sarcastic and hilarious, but it is usually very discreet. When used, sometimes it is hard to detect, but is usually slightly humorous and always mocks the subject being written about. Satire is used to make a change, to persuade, or to make an important point, but in a less serious way, in order to keep the reader interested and in order to be easily persuaded. Satire is a persuasive tool, with subtle humorous remarks and creative ways of joking about a subject, while swaying the readers perspective. Satire is usually extremely far-fetched, and ridiculous. Most satire is not meant to be taken seriously, just meant to change a readers opinion about something, and very effectively.
In class, we have read many modern, and some older, examples of satire. We recently read about an ad in the mock publishing company, The Onion, about special insoles that were created in order to heal the wearers entire body and re-align the wearer with the earth. The reader of the article is supposed to believe "scientific sounding literature" and pseudo sciences that supposedly guarantee pain free living for the wearer of the in soles. What most readers wouldn't understand is that the article is completely satirical, and a load of crap. These so called magic in soles cannot work miracles, they can only add a little bit of comfort, if that. The readers were led to believe that these in soles can bring back dead skin cells, realign ones body with the earth, and heal all discomfort in ones body. An "intelligent looking man in a white lab coat" endorses the product, and many people buy it, even if it may be completely ridiculous. The advertiser has the power to convince consumers of almost anything, especially with satire. Satire is so persuading and convincing, that it can make readers and consumers believe almost anything they see or hear, or read for that matter.
Another modern example of satire that we have read and discussed was a recent article about a woman that believed she had a close bond with famous Hollywood actress, Jennifer Aniston. The woman felt so close to Aniston, and even called the actress by a nick name, Jen. She acted as though the two of them had been close for years, when in reality, the woman had never even been in close contact with Aniston. The woman believed herself, that if she was having a bad day, she could get through it, because "if Jen could do deal with her recent break up" so could she. The writer of the article uses satire to almost ridicule the woman of her supposed "close bond" with the actress. This use of satire shows the way one can ridicule and convince readers of a subject, even if it's completely idiotic.
Yet another recent example of satire is a letter sent to the city, by a man with beavers occupying the river in his backyard. The city did not like the beavers that were building dams in the river, but the beavers had been building on the mans property, and he did not mind having the beavers there. He wrote a satirical letter to the city explaining that the "dam beavers" had rights and he wondered why they didn't have legal representation if they were getting in trouble for building their dams. The man repeated the word "dam" to add humor, and to move the letter along. He writes that if the beavers have legal representation, they need "dam lawyers", referring to lawyers that would be for the dam, but when pronounced and read, sounding as of using the word "damn", making it humorous, and the repetition and persuasion add satire. The man uses this satire and makes the beavers more human, personifying them, to make is point. This makes the city look foolish, and the beavers look harmless. The man's letter caused the issue to seem petty and ridiculous. He further explains how the beavers can't be blamed for their dams, when the bears are "defecating in the woods" and makes the city seem even more foolish than before.
As a class, we also looked at some older satire, much less modern, but still very effective, called "A Modest Proposal" by Dr. Jonathan Swift. Swift used satire to scold the Irish government and the way the famine and issues of the country were being handled. Swift proposed that the people of Ireland could make children less of a burden, and stop the famine, and solve social and economic problems by eating the children of the country. Swift's idea is outrageous and extremely far-fetched, but he made a very good point. He brought up the numerous ways in which eating children would help the country as a whole, all while being satirical and humorous at points. Swift's "modest Proposal" would help out everyone in Ireland - the government wouldn't be blamed for not helping out; the people would add more value to life and marriage and family; the economy would be much better; and the famine would be put to a stop. His proposal was completely satirical and was not meant to be followed through with and taken serious, but very logical. He used his satire to persuade the readers that eating children woul dbe good and helpful.
Satire today is used all the time in media, mostly television. Shows like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Colbert Report" use satire as a way to report news and common issues in today's society with a slight hint of humor and less seriousness. These shows are meant to inform watchers of the problems and issues of today's society, but not to be so drab and sad and serious. The shows use humor and often times mock the subject in order to help whoever is watching understand the matter without so much sadness. Most often, these shows, also including "Tosh.0" and "The Daily Show", use satire to ridicule politics and foreign affairs, or news and issues on today's society. These shows add a bit of humor and light to the matter, and keep the watcher always entertained.
Modern satire is used in many ways, including the previously listed articles and essays, and common reading and movies. Literature contains satire all the time, and many movies have satirically based plots and schemes. Satire can add light to an otherwise very sad subject, or can persuade almost any reader with humor and good logic.
In class, we have read many modern, and some older, examples of satire. We recently read about an ad in the mock publishing company, The Onion, about special insoles that were created in order to heal the wearers entire body and re-align the wearer with the earth. The reader of the article is supposed to believe "scientific sounding literature" and pseudo sciences that supposedly guarantee pain free living for the wearer of the in soles. What most readers wouldn't understand is that the article is completely satirical, and a load of crap. These so called magic in soles cannot work miracles, they can only add a little bit of comfort, if that. The readers were led to believe that these in soles can bring back dead skin cells, realign ones body with the earth, and heal all discomfort in ones body. An "intelligent looking man in a white lab coat" endorses the product, and many people buy it, even if it may be completely ridiculous. The advertiser has the power to convince consumers of almost anything, especially with satire. Satire is so persuading and convincing, that it can make readers and consumers believe almost anything they see or hear, or read for that matter.
Another modern example of satire that we have read and discussed was a recent article about a woman that believed she had a close bond with famous Hollywood actress, Jennifer Aniston. The woman felt so close to Aniston, and even called the actress by a nick name, Jen. She acted as though the two of them had been close for years, when in reality, the woman had never even been in close contact with Aniston. The woman believed herself, that if she was having a bad day, she could get through it, because "if Jen could do deal with her recent break up" so could she. The writer of the article uses satire to almost ridicule the woman of her supposed "close bond" with the actress. This use of satire shows the way one can ridicule and convince readers of a subject, even if it's completely idiotic.
Yet another recent example of satire is a letter sent to the city, by a man with beavers occupying the river in his backyard. The city did not like the beavers that were building dams in the river, but the beavers had been building on the mans property, and he did not mind having the beavers there. He wrote a satirical letter to the city explaining that the "dam beavers" had rights and he wondered why they didn't have legal representation if they were getting in trouble for building their dams. The man repeated the word "dam" to add humor, and to move the letter along. He writes that if the beavers have legal representation, they need "dam lawyers", referring to lawyers that would be for the dam, but when pronounced and read, sounding as of using the word "damn", making it humorous, and the repetition and persuasion add satire. The man uses this satire and makes the beavers more human, personifying them, to make is point. This makes the city look foolish, and the beavers look harmless. The man's letter caused the issue to seem petty and ridiculous. He further explains how the beavers can't be blamed for their dams, when the bears are "defecating in the woods" and makes the city seem even more foolish than before.
As a class, we also looked at some older satire, much less modern, but still very effective, called "A Modest Proposal" by Dr. Jonathan Swift. Swift used satire to scold the Irish government and the way the famine and issues of the country were being handled. Swift proposed that the people of Ireland could make children less of a burden, and stop the famine, and solve social and economic problems by eating the children of the country. Swift's idea is outrageous and extremely far-fetched, but he made a very good point. He brought up the numerous ways in which eating children would help the country as a whole, all while being satirical and humorous at points. Swift's "modest Proposal" would help out everyone in Ireland - the government wouldn't be blamed for not helping out; the people would add more value to life and marriage and family; the economy would be much better; and the famine would be put to a stop. His proposal was completely satirical and was not meant to be followed through with and taken serious, but very logical. He used his satire to persuade the readers that eating children woul dbe good and helpful.
Satire today is used all the time in media, mostly television. Shows like "Saturday Night Live" and "The Colbert Report" use satire as a way to report news and common issues in today's society with a slight hint of humor and less seriousness. These shows are meant to inform watchers of the problems and issues of today's society, but not to be so drab and sad and serious. The shows use humor and often times mock the subject in order to help whoever is watching understand the matter without so much sadness. Most often, these shows, also including "Tosh.0" and "The Daily Show", use satire to ridicule politics and foreign affairs, or news and issues on today's society. These shows add a bit of humor and light to the matter, and keep the watcher always entertained.
Modern satire is used in many ways, including the previously listed articles and essays, and common reading and movies. Literature contains satire all the time, and many movies have satirically based plots and schemes. Satire can add light to an otherwise very sad subject, or can persuade almost any reader with humor and good logic.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
"A Modest Proposal" Response.
In his essay, "A Modest Proposal", Dr. Jonathan Swift uses satire to try to convince the Irish government to change their ways in order to save the people of Ireland. This form of satire was unbelievable at points, and certainly different from how most people would think. Swift's use of satire shows his criticism of the Irish government, the high amount of homeless people, and the widespread poverty. Swift proposes that the people of Ireland begin eating their children, in order to prevent hunger and poverty. By eating the new children, Swift says all children will be less of a burden, and Irish families would be able to support the children they already have. Swift claims that eating the kids would support all of Ireland without as much work. The children would taste good, and they would be enough to support whole families, or even parties of people, “a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust”. Swift writes that “A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter” Wit this proposal, many people would be able to easily eat a tasty, satisfying meal of young Irish child. He states that "breeders", Irish couples that have too many kids, would be able to produce more children in order to support the country. These so-called breeders would be able to freely have sex, without worrying about the soon to be child, or getting an abortion. Swift states that his proposal would strongly decrease the number of abortions that happened, and kids wouldn't be unwanted and neglected. They would no longer be a burden on their parents. Producing, selling and consuming the children would greatly help the Irish economy as well. Poor tenants of Ireland would then be able to pay their rent, and pay to live comfortably enough. The economy would flourish and grow, leaving those poor tenants in a much better place. Eating the children, Swift also proposes, would raise the value of marriage for young people getting married. Swift says it will make more Irish folk more serious and caring about family and the issue of marriage. Both would be much more appreciated by young people, and elders. Swift's use of satire shows the reader many benefits that would come from eating the children of Ireland, and how the government should be doing something to help. Swift criticizes the Irish government, saying that it doesn't do enough to help stop the famine and poverty, but that he is actually proposing something in an attempt to help. Swift doesn't like that the government has done little to nothing to help out. Swift is upset that the government has done so very little to help out, without even attempting something to stop the famine. Swift's essay is very blunt and straightforward, simply in order to receive a good reaction out of the useless government, and the starving people. Swift simply wants to help - he is not trying to do anything weird, or immoral. He wants to make a difference because the government is not doing a good job. Eating the children is disturbing and wrong, but Swift's use of satire shows that he is not completely serious - because eating children is immoral - but in a way, he is still trying to make a point that it would be extremely helpful, and profitable for everyone. The consumption of the children of Ireland is disgusting, especially when Swift says, "I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs." It seems as if Swift is being completely serious, and he almost crosses the line; it's dismissible though, because he is simply trying to help, and his use of satire shows his joking side. Swift dehumanizes the people of Ireland, and especially the children, by calling them a "dish" that you could eat for a dinner, and by saying children are "a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food." Swift's use of satire is hard to detect at times, but by the end of the proposal, the reader can tell Swift is simply making a proposal, and not completely meaning it. Swift is trying to help, and makes a fairly good proposal in order to do just that; he believes he can really truly help. Swift makes it clear when he says, “I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the publick good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich.” Swift believes his problem will help, but he also says, "I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion, as to reject any offer, proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual.” Dr. Jonathan Swift believes his method will help everyone in Ireland, and that it will be more effective than anything the government is doing.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Blog 2: Hemingway Hero
Hemingway defined a code of ethics for heroism, the most important tenet being that a brave hero exhibits "grace under pressure." What this means is that in difficult situations -- especially mortal ones -- the hero handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on. First, how does Romero display these qualities in The Sun Also Rises? Second, how does this mesh with our modern heroes?
Pedro Romero, the true hero; a bullfighter, a lady's man, an idol for most men. He's fearless and handsome, and never backs down from a bullfight. He's a "real one" not just a regular bullfighter; He truly exhibits "grace under pressure." In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway portrays Romero as a true hero. Romero never loses his cool when he's fighting bulls, and basically steals the show. He shows the crowd a real bull fight, instead of just pulling in the viewers - Romero gives the crowd "real emotion." Romero's bull fights are the most intense, and definitely the most heroic. This heroic grace is shown every time Romero enters the ring, being extremely close to death, and never once losing his cool. Romero faces death head on, each and every day as a career. With each new show, Romero becomes more of a hero in everyone's eyes, but the old fashioned, "Hemingway Hero". Hemingway's idea of a hero is old fashioned, and shows "grace under pressure", but many people today could be considered heros as well. A modern day hero isn't quite the same as it was back in the nineteen twenties, but it's still very similar. Back then, a hero was someone who did something great, even if it wasn't really that heroic; it just had to be special, the hero had to show that grace. Today, with special effects in movies and new technology, being a hero is a little more difficult. Everyone is used to seeing amazing feats in movies, so doing something heroic in real life is a little bit more difficult. There are people in today's society that do exhibit these Hemingway Heroic qualities, such as firemen, paramedics, and even someone such as a lawyer. Firemen and paramedics are constantly under extreme pressure - to save lives, buildings, and homes. These heros could never be thanked enough, but no one gives them very much credit for what they do. The amount of lives and property saved by paramedics and firefighters is unimaginable, and we wouldn't survive without them, yet they often go unacknowledged. True heroism doesn't need thanks. The typical "Hemingway Hero" faces their danger head on, just the same as a fire fighter faces a raging fire in a big building, or the way a paramedic drives straight through the traffic in order to get where they need to go to save a life. These modern day heros are just as heroic as an original Hemingway Hero, yet the circumstances are much different. The same goes for a lawyer. Lawyers have to face an entire court room of spectators, only to sometimes lose the case, their only consolation being the fact that hey gave it all they had. A lawyer must head straight into the danger of the court room and make a case, no matter how hard it may be. Sometimes, a lawyer may want to just yell and run out of the room, because the case is too hard, or there's no way in hell they could win, but a lawyer always keeps their cool, and maintains their composure, even under immense pressure. Lawyers, just like firemen and paramedics, are also not often thought of as heros, simply because they don't carry a stun gun, or flip cars in their spare time. The true heroic qualities of these men and women, however, overpower that lack of Hollywood special effects. Someone like a friend or a neighbor could be considered a hero as well. Even though they may not be saving lives, or gaining someone's freedom, a neighbor may call 911 when the house across the street is on fire, or maybe they have a spare key when the teenage boy next door can't find his, and really needs to get inside to start his english essay. Neighbors and friends may not do anything crazy or daring, or spectacular, but they certainly display heroic qualities, and almost always keep their cool under pressure, just the way a "Hemingway Hero" does. All of these spectacular men and women may not do anything as amazing as Hollywood would like, but they all certainly exhibit grace under pressure, just the way Hemingway believed.
Pedro Romero, the true hero; a bullfighter, a lady's man, an idol for most men. He's fearless and handsome, and never backs down from a bullfight. He's a "real one" not just a regular bullfighter; He truly exhibits "grace under pressure." In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway portrays Romero as a true hero. Romero never loses his cool when he's fighting bulls, and basically steals the show. He shows the crowd a real bull fight, instead of just pulling in the viewers - Romero gives the crowd "real emotion." Romero's bull fights are the most intense, and definitely the most heroic. This heroic grace is shown every time Romero enters the ring, being extremely close to death, and never once losing his cool. Romero faces death head on, each and every day as a career. With each new show, Romero becomes more of a hero in everyone's eyes, but the old fashioned, "Hemingway Hero". Hemingway's idea of a hero is old fashioned, and shows "grace under pressure", but many people today could be considered heros as well. A modern day hero isn't quite the same as it was back in the nineteen twenties, but it's still very similar. Back then, a hero was someone who did something great, even if it wasn't really that heroic; it just had to be special, the hero had to show that grace. Today, with special effects in movies and new technology, being a hero is a little more difficult. Everyone is used to seeing amazing feats in movies, so doing something heroic in real life is a little bit more difficult. There are people in today's society that do exhibit these Hemingway Heroic qualities, such as firemen, paramedics, and even someone such as a lawyer. Firemen and paramedics are constantly under extreme pressure - to save lives, buildings, and homes. These heros could never be thanked enough, but no one gives them very much credit for what they do. The amount of lives and property saved by paramedics and firefighters is unimaginable, and we wouldn't survive without them, yet they often go unacknowledged. True heroism doesn't need thanks. The typical "Hemingway Hero" faces their danger head on, just the same as a fire fighter faces a raging fire in a big building, or the way a paramedic drives straight through the traffic in order to get where they need to go to save a life. These modern day heros are just as heroic as an original Hemingway Hero, yet the circumstances are much different. The same goes for a lawyer. Lawyers have to face an entire court room of spectators, only to sometimes lose the case, their only consolation being the fact that hey gave it all they had. A lawyer must head straight into the danger of the court room and make a case, no matter how hard it may be. Sometimes, a lawyer may want to just yell and run out of the room, because the case is too hard, or there's no way in hell they could win, but a lawyer always keeps their cool, and maintains their composure, even under immense pressure. Lawyers, just like firemen and paramedics, are also not often thought of as heros, simply because they don't carry a stun gun, or flip cars in their spare time. The true heroic qualities of these men and women, however, overpower that lack of Hollywood special effects. Someone like a friend or a neighbor could be considered a hero as well. Even though they may not be saving lives, or gaining someone's freedom, a neighbor may call 911 when the house across the street is on fire, or maybe they have a spare key when the teenage boy next door can't find his, and really needs to get inside to start his english essay. Neighbors and friends may not do anything crazy or daring, or spectacular, but they certainly display heroic qualities, and almost always keep their cool under pressure, just the way a "Hemingway Hero" does. All of these spectacular men and women may not do anything as amazing as Hollywood would like, but they all certainly exhibit grace under pressure, just the way Hemingway believed.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tropmann.
The question of capital punishment has been tossed around for years. With serious crimes being committed, and serious criminals being punished, should capital punishment be enforced? In Ivan Turgenev's passage, "The Execution of Tropmann," about the last day of a convicted murderer, Turgenev analyzes and makes a statement about capital punishment. Turgenev creates a dark and gloomy setting to convey an uneasy, guilt-ridden tone, and convince readers of his views against capital punishment.
January 1870, in Paris, France - Turgenev is invited to go see the "show" of the execution of Tropmann, a young man said to be guilty of ruthlessly murdering a whole family. Tropmann's execution is more than Turgenev can handle, and the entire night before, Turgenev illustrates gloomy scenes of fear and guilt. Turgenev is included in a group of men with the "treat" of practically being VIP for the execution. In the beginning, Turgenev is proud to be included in this special group of men, but as Tropmann's final hour approaches, feelings of shame and fear rise in Turgenev. Turgenev doesn't understand the way thousands of people gathered in the streets to see a man beheaded, and the way those people made into such a form of entertainment. Turgenev's tone is full of guilt, and extremely uneasy. He simply doesn't agree with this form of entertainment, this capital punishment.
Turgenev creates a sense of doom within his writing, and makes the reader feel as if anything could happen. Tropmann has a chance to escape, but doesn't, and Turgenev illustrates the suspense as if he made the story up. Throughout the passage, Turgenev is constantly explaining his guilt and how he felt "terribly sick at heart." Turgenev's feelings convince the reader of the atrocities of the guillotine, and capital punishment itself. As the passage continues on, and the end of Tropmann comes nearer and nearer, Turgenev makes the reader wonder why capital punishment is enforced, and how it has continued for so long. Turgenev's experience at the guillotine permanently scar him, and leave him damaged for the rest of his life. He compares the sound of the guillotine falling as if it were a "retching animal," and almost loses control of himself. Turgenev feels as if capital punishment is inhumane, cruel, and unfair.
As a personal view, I agree with Turgenev's views. Capital punishment is horrifying, and should never have existed. Turgenev's views sum up everything I believe in when it comes to capital punishment, and how it should be handled. The argument will continue on, but many agree that capital punishment is wrong.
Turgenev creates a sense of doom within his writing, and makes the reader feel as if anything could happen. Tropmann has a chance to escape, but doesn't, and Turgenev illustrates the suspense as if he made the story up. Throughout the passage, Turgenev is constantly explaining his guilt and how he felt "terribly sick at heart." Turgenev's feelings convince the reader of the atrocities of the guillotine, and capital punishment itself. As the passage continues on, and the end of Tropmann comes nearer and nearer, Turgenev makes the reader wonder why capital punishment is enforced, and how it has continued for so long. Turgenev's experience at the guillotine permanently scar him, and leave him damaged for the rest of his life. He compares the sound of the guillotine falling as if it were a "retching animal," and almost loses control of himself. Turgenev feels as if capital punishment is inhumane, cruel, and unfair.
As a personal view, I agree with Turgenev's views. Capital punishment is horrifying, and should never have existed. Turgenev's views sum up everything I believe in when it comes to capital punishment, and how it should be handled. The argument will continue on, but many agree that capital punishment is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)