Upon finishing my previous book, I've started something new, The Devil in the White City. The book is a biographical account in a novel style of the first Chicago's World Fair and the serial killer who operated during this period, H.H. Holmes. The first notable thing about the book is its structure. The author, Gary Larson, alternates the chapters consistently between two seeming "protagonists". The first is Daniel Burnham, a visionary in city architecture and the head architect of the World's Fair. The next is, big surprise, Holmes.
While the way Larson follows Burnham is more typical coming from a biographical standpoint, what really stands out is how he builds the character of Holmes in our mind. He approaches this in much the same way Capote did in his biographical novel, In Cold Blood. Based on his reporting and everything he gathered, he was able to construct a portrait of what Holmes was like as a man. He never reveals too much about Holmes at a time, though, allowing the mystique surrounding the character remain just as much intact as if we were there along with those unfortunate few caught in his web.
Holmes is a fascinating man. He’s suave, charming, and cool. A complete lady’s man, he has no problem luring innocent young women in a transitional period in their lives with kind words and his almost hypnotic aura of charm and mystery. Yet Larson is particular about stressing that many found something amiss with him. Something cold, or heartless even. Already he’s built up as almost a Hannibal Lecter-esque sociopath, someone who is so skilled at putting up a front of humanitarian perfection, behind which lies nothing recognizably human. Holmes begins his life in Chicago with the construction of The Castle, a massive building that would not only be hotel and living quarters, but pharmacy, and, ultimately, crematory.
What stands out most in the book so far is how raptured Larson keeps the reader, how he’s able to draw them in and keep them there with the promise of what’s to come. In addition, the way he slowly reveals more and more about Holmes’s dark side, just as those Holmes himself interacts with do, is absolutely brilliant. It’s a gripping read so far, and I would definitely recommend anyone to check it out.
Wow, no way. I just responded to Andrew Dunham who was reading this same book. You should talk to him about it, if you haven't already. Anyway, I'll respond to your other post, since that's more new to me.
ReplyDeleteI really have no idea what makes dialogue in a play good. I guess building consistent and believable characters has got to be a part of that, but I'll bet that's a lot easier to do on paper than if the play is actually being performed. It's interesting that awkward pauses and more-normal sounding conversation makes the play more interesting, because it seems like that's a pretty new idea i.e. Shakespeare was not big on realistic dialogue.
Anyway, I think you could elaborate a little more on what makes the play so good, because as a theater-ignorant person myself, I have no idea what makes a play good or bad. And what else makes the dialogue so good, other than being realistic? Does the play make some sort of grand, over-arching point about the nature of the human condition? Or is it just fast-paced and entertaining? If this were a book as well as a play, which version would you read for fun?
It would be cool to do a case study of famous books vs. famous plays, and see what the differences are in their style, tone, and dialogue, because they're pretty similar when you read them, except one places more focus on the characters.
Anyway, this one sounds pretty interesting, maybe I'll check it out.