At the start I began by extracting the central words of my analysis. I settled on parallel and modern. Then I inserted them in different configurations and also modified as adjectives, plurals etc.. As the brain I used the architecture library. But this wasn’t the right choice because I only got results which interpreted the word parallels with the geometrical understanding of the words and not the metaphorical understanding I was searching for. But I still held on to the architecture library. After playing with my two words a bit more I started to get results that use the word parallel in the way I intended but still didn’t reflect the theme I was looking for. I got several works investigating the parallels between architecture and the human body or other forms of art or even detailing the parallels in the evolution of firearms.
Then I gave up on the architecture library and switched to the Xenotheka library. This yielded results which were much closer to what I was looking for.
One of the first results was “Leatherbarrow Eisenschmidt, Twentieth Century Architecture” which was a near perfect fit for me. In his book he explains how to create modern architecture while focusing on the principles used in antiquity. In his book he basically explores the same exact topics as Charles Antoine Jombert in his book. The differences are only that this book goes more in depth about certain small topics but more importantly does the same thing but a few hundred years later. They both explore modern architecture but while the ancient architecture they refer to is basically the same for both of them, their respective modern architecture is vastly different.
The second book I choose is not as similar to my book as the first. While Charles Antoine Jombert only really compares the antiquity to his contemporary architecture in “Mallgrave, Modern Architectural Theory” the author compares many different styles and time periods of architecture with his modern architecture but also with one another. More interestingly he also doesn’t confine himself to styles of architecture. He also compares different personalities and more specifically their views of architecture. For example, he explores the parallels and contrasts between Lenin and Spengler. While their diverging views on architecture are interesting on their own, I find the underlying political ideas and ideologies are interesting in their own rights.