tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-693425550798338601.post7773582304616167642..comments2023-11-02T03:42:38.169-07:00Comments on Ghosts of Chicago: Devil in the White City Comes Up ShortUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-693425550798338601.post-43396366519487371392009-10-25T11:32:15.543-07:002009-10-25T11:32:15.543-07:00Wait, now--if it's very poorly written, it can...Wait, now--if it's very poorly written, it can't really be well-crafted! That boat don't float! But I see what you're getting at.<br /><br />I think the problem with Larson is that he's more of a researcher and reporter than a prose stylist. The art wasn't showing as much as the strain.<br /><br />I can see why Holmes was interesting. Not only to you, but to readers in general. Including, let's face it, ME! When I first picked up the book, I didn't care a bit about Chitown, the world's fair or Burnham. Fie upon them! I wanted the dirt on Holmes. Sick bastards are fascinating. I admit to reading Chales manson stuff all the time--and I can't defend it. It's just interesting.<br /><br />Perhaps the problem here was the attempt to weld the stories together seamlessly. Do you think? The contrast was a great reporter's trick. White City/Red Blood. Bam! Exploitation heaven.<br /><br />But, you know, it's a bit of a false comparison. You could have just as easily written The Devil in the Jungle. Beef slaughter/human slaughter. Bam! Or how about Jane Addams decides to save the world after the horrors of The Jungle and the fires and the murder hotel/human slaughter. Bam! AND HE KILLS WOMEN! BAMMM!!!Luishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543372391292275853noreply@blogger.com