Skip to main content

How did Larson use Burnham and Holmes to offer a commentary on two very different views on creativity and invention?

Daniel Burnham and Henry Holmes were both brilliant in some ways, but Burnham used his brilliance to create, while Holmes used it to destroy. Burnham was the architect who created the magnificent World's Columbian Exposition of 1893--a formidable feat, given the hurdles he faced to get it built. The results were so opulent that "some [visitors] wept at its beauty" (page 6). The fair also introduced visitors to new experiences, including the sights of Egypt and the taste of Cracker Jacks. One exhibition hall had more volume than the U.S. Capitol, St. Paul's Cathedral, and several other large structures combined.


Dr. Henry Holmes (an alias), on the other hand, used the fair to showcase his capacity for malevolence. He constructed a hotel not far from the magnificent fair grounds that housed airtight vaults that were used as gas chambers. He also built a crematorium in the basement of his hotel. Holmes killed many young women who attended or worked at the fair, and he eventually admitted to killing 27 people (including three children). However, he may have actually killed more, as he dedicated his brilliance to causing death.


Larson alternates the chapters about Burnham with chapters about Holmes to contrast how Burnham worked to invent things that would bring joy to people, while Holmes used his considerable force and intelligence to create new ways to kill. The contrast between Burnham and Holmes is that Burnham used the new technology of his age to create, while Holmes, a devil-like character, used it to destroy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more