Truth in Nonfiction discussion

Part 2 of In Cold Blood leaves us with a lot to discuss; some questions are answered while others are raised. We learn a lot about Perry's past, which gives us a better understanding of his personality and motives, but we still don't know how and why he and Dick killed the Clutters. On page 91, in response to Perry's worries about being found out, Dick says "O.K, maybe I had some wrong information," suggesting that they must have had some kind of tip or clue that turned them on to the Clutters. There must have been something they were hoping to gain by targeting the Clutters, and it also appears that they were unsuccessful in this endeavor. What could have gone wrong when they came to the house that would make them second guess their actions?

I find myself interested in the style Capote used to write this story. Usually murder mysteries are written as whodunits, but we've known all along that Perry and Dick killed the Clutters. What keeps us reading here is the fact that we don't have a sense yet of any connection between the killers and their victims; the end has to provide us with some kind of closure. Part 2 is called "Persons Unknown" but of course, the reader knows exactly who killed the Clutters. Rather than wondering with the characters in the book who the culprit or culprits were, the reader knows right away who did it, and only needs to find out why.

So what do you think? Why do you think Capote wrote ICB this way instead of in the traditional murder mystery style? Do you think that it would have been as successful/popular a book if he had written it in the more traditional style, not revealing the identity of the killers until the end when the case is solved (presumably it is solved if we know the killers), or do you think that it was important to structure the book the way he did?

I agree that Capote took a unique approach to this story and for good reason too. Think, if the Clutter's story was told in the typical whodunit style, would anyone be interested in it? In my opinion, no because it's an old regiment that people can get bored with easily. The way Capote approached the story, by telling the readers up front who committed the murders, it forces us to focus on something else other than solving the case. This is why we are reading so much into the lives of Dick and Perry. If we were still trying to figure out who killed the Clutters, we wouldn't have known how sympathetic Perry is or how deranged Dick is. But what I find the most interesting is the aftermath in the town. It's a strange feeling when we read about the other citizens of Holcomb, especially when they talk about the Clutters. One person was quoted saying "But even if I hadn't known the family, and liked them so well, I wouldn't feel any different. Because I've seen some bad things, I sure as hell have. But nothing so vicious like this. However long it takes, it may be the rest of my life, I'm going to know what happened in that house: the why and the who" (Capote 80). It's almost like the citizens were immediately desensitized to the whole situation or act like it didn't happen to such an important family. There is a big mixture of emotions running through the town, all of them rather extreme. And we wouldn't haven known any of this if Capote followed the traditional murder mystery style. So I'm glad that he took this approach, it tells a much more detailed story.

Part of the fun in reading a mystery is garnering suspicions and pieces of evidence so you can determine, or at least try to determine, the culprit on your own. Authors of fictional mysteries will create extravagant stories regarding each character to either trick you or sway you in a certain direction. It’s safe to also say that a mystery reader likes a good challenge. Capote would have to do a great deal of lying about the characters if he tried to keep the culprits unknown. Instead, he stays true to the facts and does not need to fabricate information to make it more interesting for the readers. For example, since the readers know that Bobby is innocent, Capote does not need to lie or exaggerate to make him seem like a possible suspect. The readers already know that Dick and Perry had something to do with the murder! Since this is a true account readers want reliable information and would be disappointed to read something that was mostly an author’s imagination. Thus, because Capote is “laying it all out there” and is not trying to trick the reader, people can trust that he is being truthful.

I like how Capote constructs this book because I appreciate having the two different perspectives of this terrible murder; one perspective being the Clatter family and Holcomb’s reaction to the devastating murder and the second being Dick and Perry. After the murder, Dick and Perry just up and leave, but readers have the ability to follow them while still remaining grounded in Holcomb. In real life, I do not have the ability to see both sides, so maybe the fantasy in this book is the ability to be on the inside of every aspect of this case.

The way Capote writes this book allows the reader to get to know the murderers for more than just killers. By sharing in depth descriptions of those typically not focused on until the end, the culprits, we take more of an active, detective-like role in solving the mystery of “why?” Our investigation focuses on: why kill the Clutter's and, part II opens up the investigation more when Capote writes, "'There's got to be something wrong with somebody who'd do a thing like that,' Perry said” because we are now questioning, how does Perry end up linked to a murder if he never seems comfortable with the crime (108)?
There are pages upon pages dedicated to understanding Perry's past, learning all about his family and their immense struggles. Bringing Perry's childhood into the picture creates a period where the mood becomes somber and sympathetic, not towards the Clutter's but towards the killer, Perry, as felt when Capote writes, "I found there are people even more evil... they tossed me out of the orphanage, and... put me some place worse... she'd fill a tub with ice-cold water, put me in it, and hold me under till I was blue" (132). These recollections Capote shares in this book remind me of documentaries I have seen on television, one called, The Thin Blue Line, comes to mind, also based upon a murder. In such documentaries, the childhood and life before conviction is often shared with the audience and it allows those speculating the case to see where the hostility and anger most likely would have started. In, The Thin Blue Line, the man was resented from infancy by his parents and in Truman Capote’s, In Cold Blood, we see that Perry was dismissed off and on throughout his childhood. I found that being shown a glimpse into how Perry was brought up and how he ended up where he is now was a technique Capote used well. This information has certainly not answered our question of why did Dick and Perry kill the Clutter's but there is more of an understanding as to why Perry has ended up in this situation. His life has not been “normal”, a word Dick and Perry’s father frequently refer to so to speculate on Perry’s comment, which I referred to in the beginning, there does have to be something wrong with someone for them to commit such a crime and I think Capote has allowed us to see a little of what went wrong for Perry.

I think Capote writes In Cold Blood this way for several reasons. First, his style allows the reader to focus more on Dick and Perry's psychological issues that grew from childhood, which lead them to commit both minor and major crimes. Second, Captote doesn't treat the story like a mystery. As the story progresses, the reader knows as much about the murder as the characters do. This allows the story to take on a genre of its own, instead of being a mystery to only the reader. I read a little bit ahead, so maybe this isn't fair for me to say, but I disagree that the townspeople were "desensitized" after the murder, and instead believe that they were merely wanted to move on--not forget it, but to return to their quiet, routine lives. Mrs. Hartman says, "...We can't go on like this. Distrusting everybody, scaring each other to death" (191). Myrt Clare then says, "What if they do arrest somebody? If they do, it's bound to be somebody everybody knows. And that would fan the fire for sure, get the pot boiling just when it had started to cool off" (191). To answer the second question, I think that it wouldn't be as successful if it had been written in the style that Alix described. If Capote had written it like a mystery, I don't think that it would have been as realistic or interesting. From the name of the Mexican prostitute to the flavor of gum that Dick and Perry chewed, the detail that Capote incorporates into the story makes the story come alive.

I think that Capote was able to catch the readers interest in a different way, compared to a traditional murder/mystery. From the beginning of the story the reader knows that Perry and Dick are the murderers of the Clutter family. In the first part of the book, I was more focused on the Clutter family and the town of Holcomb. I was sympathetic for the Clutter family and was curious to see why Dick and Perry murdered them together.

In the second part of the book, a lot of Perry's life is revealed in depth. Holcomb displays the aftermath of a gruesome murder in the small town. The people either display sorrow or fright. The postmistress Mrs. Clare said "but that family represented everything people hereabouts really value and respect, and that such a thing could happen to them- well, its like being told there is no God. It makes life seem pointless. I dont think people are so much frightened as they are deeply depressed" (88). After learning more about Perry and where he came from though, my main thoughts and questions about the book slightly changed. I started focusing more on Perry, almost feeling sympathetic for him, and most of all wondering how he got into that situation with Dick and following through with it. By writing the story out of chronological order with first-hand accounts and quotations, Capote was able to comprise a suspenseful piece of work that doesn't seek a person, but instead a motive from an unlikely group of people, Perry and Dick.

I thoroughly enjoy reading this style because it incorporates a great amount of detail such as the way Susan felt about Nancy's death on pg. 96, or Perry's ominous inkling on getting caught after they flea south, or his dream of salvation after catching that fish on pg. 120.

I agree with Tina in many respects. I think Capote' technique is simple in the sense that part two is not dedicated to solving the mystery of who committed the crimes. It is allowing Capote to dig in to the beginning of a search for the killers that I assume will continue throughout the book. I have a feeling it is Dick and Perry that lead the readers to the climax and resolution. Capote continues to allude and hold on to symbols and themes that are essential to capturing the reader's attention, more often than not, through foreshadowing. "Persons Unknown" is very much Capote' way of allowing to deeply describe the history Dick and Perry, in particular, Perry. Capote devotes time to Perry because it is important for the reader to understand how Perry was brought up. His childhood and the fact that he had always been essentially nomadic have to play a role in the reflection of part two.

This may be going out on a "what is she thinking," limb but the way that ICB is written is a lot like the way Holcomb seems to me. Holcomb to me seems like a complete mystery, I mean it is "out there," just as Capote's telling and style of a mystery story can be described as "out there." The way that Capote reveals immense history of Perry's life, makes it seem all the more mysterious of how or why he could be such a ruthless killer, why give the history behind the man, but not the motives. I think by doing this Capote keeps the element of surprise in a way that many other murder mysteries don't, he gives us a background but no future or motives. It's exciting and "out there."

As soon as I started reading ICB, I was hooked. I think it was Capote's way of writing, how he almost lulls the reader into a false sense of security in his descriptions of Kansas, like on page 77, where he describes "a day gloriously bright-skied, as glittery as mica." Even the scene in "The Last to See Them Alive" where Susan Kidwell and Nancy Ewalt come across the dead Clutter family is begun with the description of the Sunday morning churchgoers and how "the room was full of sunlight" (60). However, I think that the title of this section has particular significance: "Persons Unknown". Like Alix said, we know perfectly well that Dick and Perry killed the Clutters, but in most "whodunit" murder mysteries, the "bad guys" are simply that: bad people who don't seem to have emotions, pasts, or even families. However, as strange as it may seem to feel sympathy for mass murderers, Capote had me wanting to learn more about Dick and Perry and their life stories, because he displayed such a profoundly human side of the killers. As terrible as their crime is, I can't help but feel a tiny bit sorry for them, especially Perry, who was probably so traumatized by his childhood that he ended up in that situation.

I think everyone has illustrated great points as to why Capote used the style he did. As most others have said, it’s important that we remember this is a true story. This novel is a unique form of investigatory journalism and ultimately we already know what happens, but not yet why. I feel like throughout this novel Capote wants us to feel like a part of the Holcomb community by having us experience this tragedy the way the community members did. He first introduces us to the family, sets the scene of when the family members are discovered after the murders, and then takes us through trying to figure out why such a vicious thing would happen to such decent people. We, however, get to know the killers beforehand and we learn much about Perry’s past in particular. Learning about the killer’s past in such a sympathetic way eradicates most forms of journalism that I am familiar with regarding murder cases. We don’t usually see anyone go to such lengths to understand murderers because once they have been labeled as such, they are almost dismissed as human beings. Going back to what we discussed in class last Thursday, I could see that Capote sympathized with Perry, but at the time I did not see how he sympathized with him more than Mrs. Clutter. Now I completely agree that Capote is most sympathetic towards Perry and I find it interesting he does not act the same towards Dick. Maybe there is more information regarding Dick’s past that we will read about later, but so far it seems like Capote has only enhanced our malicious perspective of Dick. For example, we see this when Dick and Perry are on the road and Dick purposefully hits a dog with the car ‘“Boy!” he said—and it was what he always said after running down a dog, which was something he did whenever the opportunity arose. “Boy! We sure splattered him!”’ (112-113). If he was going to be sympathetic with Dick like he was with Perry I think we would have seen an attempt already. Maybe he tried to while he was investigating the case, but eventually he found Dick rotten to the core. It seems as if Dick fits the stereotypical, heartless criminal whereas Perry has a much more sensitive side that surprises us.

I agree with Alix when she says that Capote writes In Cold Blood (ICB) in a very interesting way. I mean in most suspense/murder mystery novels the reader does not know who the murderer(s) is, and that is the thrill behind the novel. But in ICB the reader does know who the murderers are. So what keeps us engaged in this novel? I think for me it would have to be the chase for these murderers. We never exactly know when Dewey is going to find that piece of information that will uncover some evidence of who the killers are. That for me is thrilling. We, as readers, are given these little side stories/moments, for example at the end of Part II (pg.152) when Dewey is at the Clutter's house and is trying to look for speicific evidence and thinks back to a dream his wife had. This to me would be like one of those moments that would seem to lead to some uncovered evidence or clues. Although this particular moment did not, Capote may be setting his readers up with mulitple instances such as these that could eventually lead to who the killers are.
I like Capote's different way of writting this novel- it would be almost interesting to see it written in an altered way. I don't even know if I would like it if I didn't know who the murderers were in the beginning- this peice of knowledge let's us learn more of who Perry and Dick are (their past, their feelings, etc...) This unusual element makes Capote's novel that much more great, and as a writer Capote has gotten his readers in a headtwist- he gives us so many things to focus on: Perry and Dick, Dewey's ongoing case, Perry's past, outside comments/views of the Clutter's, etc.... But by doing this Capote creates a thrilling and at least to me still suspenseful novel. I find if funny that even though the murders have been committed, I still feel butterflies in my stomach when I am reading this novel. Does anyone else have that feeling as well? (or maybe I am just a scaredy cat)

I love the psychological turn that ICB has taken. Capote has set us up with a burning desire to understand why the Clutters were murdered. Part 2 is largely devoted to descriptions of Perry's past, and one must wonder what caused Capote to focus so much on Perry. Perry is a character that Capote develops a strong sympathy for, a sympathy that is evident throughout the book so far both in terms of how Capote describes him, and also sheerly through the emphasis and focus that Perry is given, compared to the rest of the characters. But why is Capote so sympathetic? We know Perry was one of the murderers, and it is hard to find sympathy for a killer. Even hearing of Perry's troubled life thus far, tragic as it was, does not provide strong enough justification for his involvement in the murder, or for Capote's sympathy, or at least not in my opinion. The sympathy for and treatment of Perry as a character is especially intriguing since this is a work of non-fiction. So in summary, these were some other questions I found myself focusing on while reading, along with questioning the motive for the Clutters murders, of course.
And Mallory- I know what you mean about having butterflies haha. Of course the mystery of what the motive could be is what is keeping the pages turning for me, but at the same time I am almost nervous about finding this out!

I really liked what Caroline said about the story being told in the way that Holcomb truly is: "out there." Since this was one of the first ever nonfiction pieces written and Capote sort of created a new genre through this story, I think it’s safe to say that his style for In Cold Blood was indeed “out there,” just like Holcomb was. Do you think that this interesting parallel was intentional? Like what almost everyone has already said, I think that the “out there” factor is what makes the story to powerful. In the interview on the class blog, Capote mentions that he wanted to write something new and different. If he had done the basic storytelling of a gruesome family murder, then I don’t think anyone would have really cared. It would have been an almost-cliché novel instead of something that, like Mallory said, gives us eerie goosebumps/ butterflies while reading, even though we’re fully aware of the horrible events that will take place.

Because I feel like we’ve started to exhaust Alix’s prompt, I have a question about the validity of Capote’s details. On page 146, Capote prints a “sample page” of the words that Perry has written down in his personal dictionary. A few words that stuck out to me included: “Thanatoid = deathlike,” “Amerce = punishment,” “Facinorous = atrociously wicked,” “Hagiophobia = a morbid fear of holy places & things,” “Dyspathy = lack of sympathy, fellow feeling,” and “Depredeate = to pillage, rob, and prey upon.” All of these words seem to have a close connection to Perry’s life, and although his personal dictionary is, in fact, a place where he writes down “words he believed “beautiful” or “useful,” or at least “worth memorizing,”’ it seems a little too coincidental that they all matched up to his life so perfectly (146). Is it too critical of an assumption for me to make that Capote fudged some of the definitions to make the dictionary seem more meaningful or telling of Perry’s personality? (In the end, I guess it doesn’t really matter, but it’s interesting to ponder. Almost like it’s a mystery in itself – never knowing what parts are real and what Capote slightly fabricated.)

This is only one example of where I felt like Capote’s details were a little too intentional/ forced compared to the subtle details throughout that make the story feel more real (one particularly real detail that stuck out for me was the scarecrow that Dewey could see in the distance from the Clutter household). Did anyone else find any similar places in Section II that felt less real? Overall, do you think that this style still works, despite little intentional details that take away from the “truth” of the nonfiction?

Alix, I think your prompt was very intriguing, but I agree with Maggie that you all have covered the prompt in a very thorough way.

Maggie, I also noticed the extreme level of detail in Capote's writing. As we discussed in class the other day, there are parts of the book that were inevitably fictional. The interactions and conversations between the Clutter's for example had to be improvised . As far as the excerpt you offer from page 146, I believe that Capote intentionally chose those words but I do not think it made them any less real. I think that Capote gives the reader very specific lenses through which to look and that he selectively tells the truth in order to bring the reader to certain conclusions about the story and each character in it.

I think in a way I am now addressing both prompts because Capote's story telling and the details he chooses to share shape the readers vision of the truth. It is not necessarily that what he is writing is untrue or less real, but the reader only knows what Capote wants us to know. He could be withholding many facts that he acquired in his interviews in order to tell the story from a specific perspective. Factual as it is, I almost feel like Capote is telling the story from his own, very attached perspective. As discussed above it is clear that he got to know Perry rather well and sympathized with him arguably more than he should have. He wants us to see the characters in a certain way and because we gain our information from him it is hard not to see the characters as he does. in this way I think the style "takes away from the truth".

Maggie, I agree with your statement accusing Capote of possibly “fudging” some details in the book to make it more meaningful, but this fabrication is quite needed. Personally, I find myself nodding off every once in a while, which I never would have expected from a murder mystery. Yet it is because of Capote’s unique approach that I am not amused by the obvious- rather, I must force myself to read into detail more. By doing so, I am able to see that these details, such as the scarecrow, are actually quite eerie and exciting. By being forced to reach farther for contentment in this piece, the reader can better appreciate/suspect both the victims and the culprits as we learn more about each.

On page 147, Capote discusses the small detail of Inez. Inez does not have much importance to the story from a distant view, but by focusing on both Perry’s and Dick’s views of her, the reader gets a better understanding of each character. Perry, “felt sorry for… such a ‘stupid kid’”, showing how he disapproves of Dick’s choice of using and leaving her. Dick, on the other hand, had told her they would get married when in reality he was “planning to leave Mexico that very afternoon” (147). This shows his ability to use someone to get what he wants, whether it hurts him or her in the process or not.

These characterizations are starting to be detected through the murders of the Clutters, and although these details may be small and perhaps forced, they are both interesting and necessary to weave the webs of this story. Who knows though how long it’ll be before things start to get too tangled?

I will first touch on the initial point in regards to Capote’s style of writing, even though it has been discussed to what may be the furthest extent. It was suggested that a “whodunit” style might have been a better option for this piece. I tend to disagree. Consider, as Capote was establishing a revolutionized style of nonfiction writing, it would be impossible for him to respectably take this story and maintain its truth by keeping the killers a mystery to us all until the final pages. By preserving the reality, Capote took the facts and turned them into a captivating story. I think it also says something about Capote as an author because he is able to take a murder story, tell us who the assassins are from the very start, and continue to keep us searching for more to the story. I think he is keeping a somewhat traditional murder mystery writing style by keeping us wondering what Dick and Perry’s motive is for the deliberate and horrifying acts, which have not only wiped out the Clutter family, but also destroyed the people of Holcomb.
I am going to bring up another topic, mostly as a way of avoiding summarizing the other threads, although it has somewhat been alluded to. As I read this section, which really dragged on as a tiring account of Capote’s sympathizing of Perry under Dick’s controlling crime wrath, I noticed that Perry is almost as great a victim of this book as the Clutters. Maybe that is a bit extreme of a statement, seeing that as of now, Perry is still alive in the book, unlike the Clutters. However, I noticed that Perry really has no life in him and instead is just being pulled along on a path that he has never wanted but has never found a way of getting away from. This may be a fervent premonition, but I feel as though the real death of Perry will be in the coming pages. He is the one who shows the greatest emotional toll from the murders while Dick is just living with disregard of the harm he has done and with a truly heartless character.