Far Too Ordinary

The village of Holcomb, much like any other small village in Carteret County is isolated to an extreme extent, and is referred to by other Kansans as “out there.” The village’s vast, flat land is made up of only one post office, one school, one bank, and one grocery store. This makes the town seem very ordinary, and in many ways it is.

The fact that Holcomb has an all grade level school certifies that there are not many residents living there. The people who do live in the small town, most certainly know every single person who resides there too. And in comparison to other cities located in Carteret County, Holcomb is not much different. Only one dissimilarity of course, would be none other than the mysterious Clutter case.

Capote describes this town in such a way that molds a perfect picture as to how truly ordinary Holcomb is. Specific details in the text describing not only the town itself but the people who live there provide the reader with a real sense of how the citizens of Holcomb might respond to a severe crime such as the Clutter case. Truman Capote can truly captivate any audience with this climatic work of art.

Montage

Capote uses montage to captivate the reader and bring them in closely. Switching back and forth between Holcomb and the killers builds suspense in the audience. The montage in In Cold Blood makes the readers feel empathy and anger for the killers as the towns people went through the home collecting blood stained clothing and objects, "Finishing there, they moved on to the playroom in which Kenyon had been shot to death" (pg. 78). Just before this, Capote was describing Dick's return home, his quiet Sunday supper, and then retiring to bed.

Another example of Capote using montage is when Dick and Perry are preparing to make their journey to Holcomb"At noon they put down their tools, and Dick, racing the engine, listening to the constant hum, was satisfied that a thorough job had been done" (pg. 24). This line is an ominous one, because it sets in motion the events that lead up to the grisly murder of the Clutter family in their own home.

Holcomb, Kansas

Holcomb, Kansas is an idyllic little town in the middle of nowhere, USA. It is located in Finney ( formerly Carteret) county and is very typical of a small farming town in the Midwest; it is the epitome of the American dream, with vast fertile land, large herds of cattle, and picturesque white picket fence houses with a happy family residing inside. Capote makes the reader visualize the town with the line "Some seventy miles east of the Colorado border, the countryside, with it's hard blue skies and desert clear air... the land is flat and the views are awesomely extensive" (pg. 3) However, this would soon change after the Clutter family was brutally murdered.

Holcomb is essentially the same as any other farming town, it has its people, its municipalities, buildings, and homes. Capote describes the postmistress as someone very personable and real, "Down by the depot, the postmistress, a gaunt woman who wears a rawhide jacket and denims and cowboy boots presides over a falling apart post office" (pg. 6). By going into great length and detail about the background characters of this town, Capote is making them truly come alive in the book. He felt that by describing them vividly, it would give the Clutter family murder more gravity, because no gruesome crimes have ever been comitted in a place like Holcomb.

Death Penalty

The death penalty stands as what is usually known as the ultimate punishment. But we know nothing about death. We don't know what it's like. People argue that Dick and Perry deserve worse, prison, a lifetime of work and sorrow. People want anyone who can do such a thing removed. Any associates of the Clutters would want to see them dead. With so much opinion over something that cant be proven either way to be worse, or better than the alternatives, who can honestly say they know what's best? A conversation between Richard Parr and another newsman demonstrates the mixed opinions. " he was telling the truth, Parr said. The truth can be brutal. To coin a phrase.' 'But he didn't have to hit that hard. It's unfair.' 'What's unfair?' 'The whole trial. These guys didn't stand a chance.' 'Fat chance they gave Nancy Clutter' ' Perry Smith. My God. He had such a rotten life." Now, not only does this demonstrate the multiple opinions of the men present, but also raises a point. If a man appears to be driven to the point of wickedness by wicked people, does he deserve the same punishment as another? To me, yes. I feel very bad that it turned out that way, but it did. He did a terrible thing and, if for nothing else but the solace of the Clutters towns people, he should be silenced. But that is only true in my world. The real world is composed of many conflicting statements, all with equal legitimacy. Everyone can be called bias, and everyone is wrong to someone. So where is the line drawn? The family of the victim would want the harshest action, though some would claim that the accused needs to find God. On this spectrum of possible capital punishment where is the line drawn? We still don't know today.

Just A Small Town Tale On A Big Scale.

The setting that this whole story takes place in, Holcomb, Kansas, is the picturesque Old-style American town. Schools, churches, farms, suburban housing in addition to hotels, and a community that is so trustworthy of everyone else who lives there that the killings of the Clutter family came as a huge shock. It may not be the most advanced town, but it certainly is memorable.

The murders of the Clutter family sent a wave of fear and distrust throughout the entire community. Who could do such a dastardly deed? They had all trusted each other so well. How did this happen? In a larger town or city, this wouldn't have had such an impact. However, in a town like Holcomb, where every citizen is as tightly-knit like a fine quilt, something like murder is taken very heavily and deeply, because it affects them all. The other people aren't as trustworthy as they thought.

The town of Holcomb gets so vividly described and portrayed that it's almost like being there, just by reading the details that Capote wrote. Well, as close to being there that a book can describe, but that's irrelevant. It reflects his immense skills as an author, and the great sense of description that he has. If it had been written by anyone else, it wouldn't be the same, and the meaning would be lost. The piece that Capote assembled is truly a masterpiece.

This, Or That?

It's a common question: Who deserves the death penalty? Well, one of them definitely does, but not the other.

Dick basically exploited Perry into doing to murders for him. Knowing that Perry had a mental disability, and thoroughly thinking over how the outcome would be depending on different factors, he was able to craft out the plan, and set it into action. All he needed was a poor individual like Perry to come along, and BAM! Free Get-Away-With-Murder plan. Except that he got caught, and justice was brought down on him. For not only planning the murders, but placing the blame on someone else, the death sentence is a fitting end.

Perry was innocent on a very deep level. Had Dick not have placed him in that situation he made for himself, things may have been different. He may have been able to successfully bypass being executed, but things didn't happen that way. For being the one to do the murders, he was executed. However, was it considered that his mental state severely impairs his judgement? It could have been a bit different for him, if Capote had given him a chance at rehabilitation therapy.

In short, Dick totally deserved it, while Perry should have been given a second chance, so to speak, because of his mental state. Dick was the real killer, while Perry was a sad, exploited accomplice. Lacking the moral values, Dick did what he did, but he dragged Perry down with him in the end. It's a "Bad Guys Win" kind of ending. Well, that's just my opinion on the matter.

Arg1. Lauren Martin

It is a hard decision when you are asked whether or not someone deserved to get the death penalty. Yet, when it comes down to it, I do believe that Perry and Dick deserved their fate. For a person to commit the murder of an entire family to settle a 'score' is the most cold blooded thing a person can do. If a person has the mental capacity to plan out the murder of four innocent people, then who is to say they won't do it again? Maybe living in jail would be a worse conviction, to sit and rot your life away and think about the horrible thing you did, it is a painful and sad life. The death penalty can also be an example, to any other person who would consider committing the crime would think about Perry and Dick who were hung for the crime. If you killing someone to settle a score, is it worth it to live with the guilt, and possibly die for it too? Never. At the same time, it is difficult to say whether or not Dick and Perry were phased by their conviction. Perry wanted to die. He was finished with living the life he was given, and heartbroken from his distance with his family. If Perry wanted to die, then he should have been given life in jail, which is a more painful experience, where he can 'learn his lesson' so to speak.

Believe It Or Not?

Truman Capote's novel, In Cold Blood, was mostly written with Capote acting as a subjective narrator. Notice how i said mostly written. When a writer emphasizes or shares their own personal feelings, thoughts, judgements, and opinions, their writing is subjective. Yes, since In Cold Blood is supposedly "a true account of a multiple murder and its consequences," we would automatically think that Capote would be acting as an objective narrator. Objective writing presents facts and figures only and doesn't include the writer's beliefs or feelings. He is, of course, reporting facts as he had collected them and rewrote in his words and style of writing what was told to him. The facts within the novel include the names of both the victims and the murderers of the Clutter case, where this murder took place, and how the investigation played out until the hanging. It is of course, journalism, and in reporting, the journalist creates influence over the reader by manipulating and emphasizing certain points they feel requires that attention. Even though it's a "true account" as well, it is possible for many people to recall to another person the events that happened but hardly ever exactly how it went. For example, is there any way to know that what was said between Dick and Perry exactly the same as how it happened? No, we can't, we're just relying on what Capote has written. We can't know for sure what was going on in each person's head even if Capote was able to write it as if he actually were. Truth is, we may never really be able to decipher what actually happened from what was bended and twisted into a story. Only the people involved will know.

Sympathizing with the Enemy

Capote's In Cold Blood not only tells us the fact that Dick and Perry have killed four innocent people, whom they have not actually known just heard about, he also share with us the past life story of both murderers. How could he make us sympathize to two dangerous men? Capote must have chose his words wisely for us to expand on our knowledge by literally manipulating us to go back to our morals. We were all raised by being told what's right and what's wrong and the background of the killers, Dick and Perry, has led us to the feeling of sympathy.

When you learn about Perry's, rather heartbreaking, life during adolescence it makes us, of course, more sympathetic towards him. Only a person who has been blinded by the angered emotions of the killings would not fall under the spell of Capote's heart felt words in this novel. We humans have the tendency to feel sorry for those who have gone through the worst, it gives us the possible explanation for their behavior. Though Dick had an extremely better life compared to Perry, how would we know if his so called "perfect" family was really what it seemed. Even kids with the great life rebel, it's not necessarily impossible for Dick to be a murderer. Capote has made me sympathetic towards them and he has accomplished his goal because Capote means every word he says.

Unnoticed

"You want to be reasonably certain that the material not soon date." In saying this, Truman Capote was also saying that "timeliness" was important to writing great journalism. Forty years after In Cold Blood's first publication the book does, in fact, still possess the element of "timeliness."

The novel still has influence over people; the fact that we can, as a class, read this novel and have debates on topics that come about because of the book, shows that it still possesses the element of "timeliness." The writing itself hasn't lost its meaning nor has it lost what it was trying to portray because it was captured in that moment it was written for us to read years later. Like science, we continuously look for different meanings within the writing, we look at it in different perspectives and try to understand the people described in the novel, and years later from now, students younger than us may read this same novel and come up with conclusions we may never have thought of. The book's influence on its readers may never have an end to it which creates the "timeliness" of a book published forty years ago. Capote was able to preserve the Clutter family's tragedy by writing this novel even if some of the information was reportedly false and had a source of bias opinion, he still was able to do so. If we hadn't read about this case through this book, would any of us even bothered to care about this murder that happened so long ago at all? I hadn't even known something such as this had happened, what else are we letting go unnoticed just because it's not within our state, because it seems to have no immediate meaning or relation to us? Our thoughts and feelings are the result of In Cold Blood's "timeliness."

Retaining Timeliness

Though it has been forty years since In Cold Blood was first published, time has not made the story of the Clutter family tragedy any less engrossing. Though the plot of the book is centered around murder, the book is actually a look at human nature, which is why it retains its timeliness.

It is difficult for our “normal” society to comprehend why people commit senseless and violent acts. Such people are disturbed and abnormal, but why? The appeal of In Cold Blood is that it is a rare glimpse into the minds of two such “disturbed” men. It doesn’t matter if they’re from forty years ago because we are still trying to understand the nature of killers. For example, after a killing rampage occurs, experts will be featured on the news to analyze the killer. Family, childhood, hobbies- everything will be scrutinized in an attempt to explain to viewers at home why a terrible tragedy happened. Capote does the same with Dick and Perry by going into extensive detail of Perry’s traumatizing childhood and Dick’s more normal one and by interviewing those who knew the two. Despite all of these efforts, will we ever truly understand the nature of a murderer? No, because we are too “normal”. As a result, we will keep on reading In Cold Blood for years to come in the hopes of gaining more insight on the darker side of human nature.

Back-and-Forth

Truman Capote, the author of In Cold Blood, uses montage in writing this novel. He wrote it switching back-and-forth between Holcomb, where the Clutter family resided, and the approaching killers as an attempt to a "true account of a multiple murder and its consequences." Even after the murders had been conducted, Capote switched back-and-forth between what the killers were doing while the investigation was being done and the effect the murders had on the people of Holcomb. What would be so significant about this style of writing? What effect would it have? Depending on your point of view, it varies.

The use of montage created suspence; it had you putting puzzle pieces together from the beginning, trying to figure out how these people: the Clutter family, Dick, and Perry, were to become connected. The novel started out describing Holcomb as "simply an aimless congregation of buildings...a haphazard hamlet bounded on the south by a brown stretch of the Arkansas River, on the north by a highway...and on the east and west by prairie lands and wheat fields" (Capote 3). From there, it began to describe Mr. Clutter and then Perry. I'd say about then, the effect montage started to have on the novel would be that it was comparing and contrasting. It was comparing and contrasting both the places these two characters were in and the characters themselves saying such as "like mr. clutter, the young man breakfasting in a cafe...never drank coffee" (Capote 14) and previously had mentioned "the master of River Valley Farm, Herbert William Clutter, was forty-eight years old" (Capote 5). As Capote was using the style of montage, in describing the characters, he was setting the stage for any possibilities that could occur. Capote began letting you in on each person's personalities, letting you get to know them better, building his influence over you and your opinions about the people being described. How alike were these two sets of people? How different were there? Who would you sympathize with more? People, like the Clutters, who lived by their success and prospered? Or people, like Dick and Perry, who lived day by day looking for ways to make ends meet and down on what seemed to be luck? Capote's use of montage would basically come together and enhance how much influence it had on the reader as a whole in their perspective about each person. Would you honestly have known that this novel was about the murders of the Clutter family if it had not been for the summary on the back of the book just by reading the first few chapters? We each have our own experiences, our own trials, our own triumps, and most of the time, if not all the time, we find common ground in what and how we can relate. Capote's use of montage to write In Cold Blood had that effect. I don't know about you, but it made me think about my actions, how much of it I base on how I was brought up and whether or not if it's their fault, whoever it was that affected me in the past, or it it's solely my fault, that I have no one else to blame but myself.

A6. Describe Holcomb.

I believe Holcomb is one of those story book towns where it is just ordinary people doing hard labor. There is not much crime which makes a town somewhat innocent. It really gives you a sense that bad things can happen anywhere no matter how safe a innocent a community is. It is really cut off from civilization which gives it this kind of feel. It makes the murder to be a Huge tragedy in the community because the family that was murdered had such a big impact on them. It really gave them a feeling that if it could happen to them it could happen to anyone. Also the families in the community were so close knit that after the murder it ruined it all because there was a sense that it was someone in the community. I believe the author explains the town so much because it explains the reason that detective Dewey had such a desire to solve it because it was personal. Also it gets you to dislike the murderers more.

Structure of Same Blood

To be in “cold blood” is usually referring to one lacking emotion. Some have heard someone use the phrase, “cold blooded killer” at once point. As heinous as their crimes were, I felt empathy towards our so called, “beloved” criminals.

Capote builds on Perry and Dick’s character development throughout the entire book. We grow fond of their characters, as much as we disagree or not- we unconsciously begin to think of the characters as our comrades. We draw ourselves closer to Dick and Perry, in my opinion, because of how Capote reveals to us their nature and their background.

We don’t encounter Dick and Perry after they’ve done the crimes. We meet them before, during, then we follow them on their character adventure that leads to their deaths. I believe that its in our nature to draw closer or grow fond of people we get to know, even with fictional characters. I think Capote knew what he was doing- he knew that by putting a character description and story that could “toy” with our emotions, he’d have us hooked. Capote knew how to exploit our own natural emotions, for the well being of our experience with his book. He wanted us to internally struggle with our reasonings and feelings. He wanted our minds to turn and think- to be completely engulfed by this book.

Objective Narrator

The definition of objective is, "relating to or based on verifiable evidence (bias free)". Subjective, on the other hand, is "based on (or related to) attitudes, beliefs, or opinions instead of on verifiable evidence or phenomenon."

Using the definitions of objective and subjective, Capote is an objective narrator. In Capote's own words, "My feelings is that for the nonfiction novel to be an entirely successful, the author should not appear in the work." ("The Story Behind a Nonfiction Novel," New York Times interview with George Plimpton, January 16, 1966.) He cites as an example, "In the first part of the book-the part that is called 'The Last to See Them Alive' - there's a long narration word for word five by the schoolteacher who went with the sheriff to the Clutter house and found the four bodies. Well, I simply set that into the book as a straight complete interview..."

Capote used interviews, direct observation, and thorough note-taking to weave his narrative. In the book he never reveals his personal feelings or opinion with the reader. He also says during the interview, "I make my own comment by what I choose to tell and how I choose to tell it." This may suggest that the book is a subjective narration. However, he had six years worth of research and notes that he couldn't possibly include it all. His statement is more about his writing style and choosing which details would enhance the story.


http://www.business dictionary.com/definition/subjective.html
http://www.nytimes.com/ads/capote/capote)_10.html

Death Penalty

An eye for an eye, which means if you do something bad then you get that back the same way. Karma will bite you in the butt, what comes around goes around. These saying make you think well because Perry killed the Clutter family then he should die too.Well you could say that the justice system is playing god, it is taking away lives and they put people in jail for killing. So what does that have to say about us trying to let Dick off easy? Death is fast you don't have to deal with your decision anymore. The hurt and pain you have caused by taking away another man's life , is not easily forgotten sitting and rotting away for the rest of your life in prison, to think about what you have done.

Dick personally did not kill the Clutter family however he did plan the whole scheme."And that was that he wanted to say he killed Mrs.Clutter and Nancy Clutter-not Hickock." "..and that's when Dick outlined what he had in mind." "The plan was to rob the safe, and if we were seen -well, whoever saw was us would have to go."
It would be accessory to murder, Dick had everything planned out to a wire, he kept telling Perry"no witnesses".Dick very much knew what and how he wanted everything done.
No one should ever deserve the death penalty because we can't play god and take away someones life for taking another.

Thrilled to the Bone!

Suspense! It's what some authors thrive for yet no success, but Capote turns his thrilling story In Cold Blood's plot around. The gruesome outcome of the story is told in the beginning of the novel, yet Capote still keeps the suspense. How is this possible? Capote has the talent of pathos in the structure of his wording, elaborate sentences, and just the overall the plot. In Capote's novel In Cold Blood though we knew the Clutter family had died and who was responsible for it, it was the detective leading to the assumption of Dick and Perry, as murderers, that gave you the feeling of suspense.

The crime had no evidence and no witnesses the only clue left behind was their foot prints, but that wasn't enough to actually pin the crime on a murderer or murderers. The suspense was literally the questions that came to mind while reading. For example, when will they find out it was Dick and Perry or even at least suspect them? Capote's use of montage to keep the reader informed about the whereabouts of Dick and Perry and the happenings of Holcomb and Detective Dewey just added on to it. In Cold Blood was suspense and that is what kept us all reading with anticipation.

Arg1. Does Dick Deserve The Death or Perry deserve the death penalty? Does anyone?

I believe the death penalty can be used to an extent. I believe Morally it is wrong because as a species we are supposed to survive. Although the death penalty should be used to remove repeat offenders from society. I believe that prison is not so much of a punishment it is just to remove the mislead or disturbed people from society. I feel that because of the book I cannot give an legitimate answer to the question should Perry or Dick have been given the death penalty, but can anyone really. There really is no balance because anyone can be biased, overcome by emotion, or unfair. I really don't believe that anyone has the right or the knowledge to decide if someone else should live or die. For example dick accused the judge of being "biased" but there was no proof given, but there is no legitimate way of deciphering if someone is biased or unbiased. I believe that this is a flaw of us as a species that we cannot see through someones exterior and into there true personality. So I believe that the death penalty is fair to an extent.

Reposting this the rigth way??

In Cold Blood was definitely an attention grabber, as the story began we knew that the clutters were doomed, hence capote repeating the words "not knowing it'll be his last." These words were repeated throughout the begining of this novel to build the suspense tho we alread knew they were to be murder and we also knew that Dick and Perry would be the murderers, what we wanted to know was the reaction of the town, who was blamed, and how they got caught with the one connection that was left behind. Capote's foreshadowing helped to rock you in your boots trying to think about what was going to happen next and if Dick and Perry would ever be caught, but as we entered the courtroom in the story the ttension and suspense built, we started to ask ourselves, What would be wrong with someone to commit such crimes? and, How did they bring themselves to do it? but soon after we discover that there was something wrong, building the suspense up more making us wonder, Since we know something is wrong are they going to go to the psycho ward to get better, or rot in the jail cell? As we later uncover the duet seemed to get themselves locked up, but by now the suspense died down, bringing us to the final and most suspicious time, Were Dick and Perry ever going to set thier date for thier D-Day or would they get another court date? Capotes use of foreshadowing, to build the suspision, helps create a mood of distrust towards anyone in the book though we did already know the murderers, it helped to create a mourningful mood for those who lost the clutters but a suspicious one to anyone who later came into the book as a suspect. The suspision is why it's called the original C.S.I.

Kinda Late on the intro..

Hello my name is Alana G. (pronounced Ah-Lay-Nah) Im taking this AP class along with AP biology. Most of you know me as a cheerleader but in my free time i am either shopping or cooking some new creation. =] guess ill see you guys in class.

A10. Capote Recounts the store in a Certain Order. Bryson V.

In In Cold Blood the structure of the story is very explicit. I really enjoy the way he uses the approaching killers to add suspense even though you know the out come. The way he depicts of murder of the family is very interesting it shows the death of the family before it tells you want happens which giving you a sense of curiosity to figure out what really happened in that house that night which encourages you to continue on reading. I believe the structure of this story was so the reader could have sympathy towards the criminals. It really makes the death of Dick and Perry a "tragedy". I believe that Capote could have depicted the murders then went straight onto the death of Perry and Dick. Then as the book goes on he could have shown what really went on in the house and given the back round of Perry and Dick. Then explained the Capture and spree of Dick and Perry. Then depicted the last months before death. Although I am no Capote I believe that this would give a interesting and unconventional way of depicting the story.

Switcharooni

Throughout the non-fiction novel, In Cold Blood, Truman Capote uses montage. He switches back and forth chronologically between what's going on in Holcomb and what's happening with the two killers, Dick and Perry.
One thing that this montage did was make the reader question which side they're really on. Everyone is against the terrible act itself, but once you get to know the killers and see what they have gone through, and what they are going through, it makes you feel a sort of sympathy for them and after they are executed. It makes you think about whether they should have had the death penalty, which might be a main purpose of the book. And reading both sides of the story really makes you stop and think before you agree with their execution. If the book was totally written in the perspective of the people in Holcomb, then the murder of the Clutters would have made you angry with the people responsible and made you want them to die, whoever it was. But once you see how Dick and Perry could come to such an act, due to their messed up nature and nurture, it makes you pity them and wonder if there could have been a better solution.
Another thing that the use of montage achieved in the book is that it builds suspense. It mainly builds suspense for the reader during the first part of the book which is before and during the killing. It shows what the Clutters are up to, all the while the killers are getting closer and closer every time you arrive at their turn of the montage. It builds suspense of when, and how the murder will happen as well as how the Clutters will react. The killers are gathering their supplies, planning the event, and meanwhile the Clutters are carrying on with their normal lives, and they don't even see it coming. And later, Dick and Perry are getting away while investigators in Holcomb are still putting the pieces together. This montage involves alot of dramatic irony, when the reader knows something that a character doesn't, throughout the book which builds anticipation and suspense in the reader.

-Holly Dickens per.2
A9.

how was this structured???

Capote structured the book most definitely different from the books we read like twilight and other fantasy novels. The structure of the book makes this book supremely unique over most books, which is why it is a classic novel. Capote incorporates the life of the clutters at the beginning of the story, but at the same time he incorporates what Dick and Perry are doing at that moment, almost like telling 2 stories at the same time. As we read on in the book we discover the structure of the story, plots come together and it foreshadows the next step, the murders.By explainingthe Clutters lifestyle to us we gain a little sorrow for the people around that situation, but as the story moves forward, we begin to mourn less for the clutters because Capote also explains the reasons for the murder, we don't necessarily begin to pity Dick because see that Dick chose to be the way because he didn't get his way, but more towards Perry because Perry's life was a complicated asylum in which there was many tunnels we cannot travel. Perry we later discover has schizophrenia at the beginning stages. The structure of the story is what turns the tide of our emotions we know this is going to happen then we discover a reason later. One way Capote could have done it was to give us the details during the time the murders were happening, like giving us details as if in a flashback showing us were the two character,Dick and Perry, get their anger from. By doing it that way Capote would have changed the plot of the story and the book would grow less suspicious.

A1. Lauren Martin

"You are a man of extreme passion, a hungry man not quite sure where his appetite lies, a deeply frusterated man striving to project his individuality against a backdrop of rigid conformity. You exist in a half-world suspended between two superstructures, one self-expression and the other self-destruction. You are strong, but there is a flaw in your strength, and unless you learn to control it the flaw will prove stronger than your strength and defeat you."
In this paragraph, Capote's use of syntax is mesmerizing. He has used an almost philosophical choice of sentence structure that leaves you wondering how a man as brilliant as Willie-Jay ended up on the wrong path, the fork in the road in which he took the path that lead him straight to prison. To portray a person's anger issue tied to thier confused passion as a worldly mix of superstructures almost paints an elaborate picture. The painting puts Perry in the center of two things, the dark wing of a rough childhood and a relationship with his good friend, Dick. Perry is the more recessive of the pair. Perry has been painted as the weak link in the chain, the follower of Dick's influence. Yet, the use of words that Willie-Jay put into his letter to Perry makes the reader believe that he is a lot stronger than what we have expected or come to realize, at least until later in the novel. If Perry has some kind of hidden strength that he himself has yet to find, what well happen when he does find it? When he discovers a higher strength to defeat the flaw? Capote has found a way to make his words seem as though they were written by a higher, more renown philosopher, in example, Aristotle, Rather than by a prison inmate. To put such words, written written from an inmate to a killer, makes one wonder, what kind of good impact on a person a killer could have bestowed? What makes us believe that a killer couldn't have a good impact on another being? Capote has let us see the other side to things, the more realistic and sincere side. Which can only be betrayed by such wording as he had used between the two friends.

Building Suspense

Capote did a very good job, which you all know, of keeping the book suspenseful even though we all know the outcome from the beginning. How does he do this? The way the book is organized is the reason it has suspense. The whole time I was reading, I couldn’t wait learn how and why Perry and Dick had murdered the Clutter family. This was the most interesting part. By skipping past that part in the beginning of the book, it keeps you wondering, leaves that suspense, up until the murderers are caught and share their stories of that night. The method of killing was also suspenseful because Perry and Dick hardly talked about the murders while they were driving all over the place. The only thing you knew were the materials they bought, which could have been used in the murders, but you don’t know for sure.

Another aspect of the book that was somewhat suspenseful was when the killers would be hanged. Because the trial goes on for so long, you are not sure what is going to happen in the time that they are being locked up before the final decision is made. Will their lawyers find some new evidence that they a mental illness? Will Perry’s family ever come to see him, or even write to him? Nor do you know how far ahead the actual day of their death is. By organizing the book in a way that leaves questions in your head and makes you want to keep reading, Capote was able to build suspense in In Cold Blood.

death penalty?? necessary?

I do not agree that the Death Penalty was the way to go, even thought Dick and Perry did murder a whole family whom every one in the town of Holcomb favored dearly. First off the town of Holcomb was a very pious town and they agreed to go against what they believed for revenge. One does not need to be killed becuz of a mistake they commited, while Dick and Perry were in court, the psycologist came to study them, they were deamed crazy though Dick did know what he was doing was wrong he didnt need to die for it, but Perry on the other hand had "The begining stages of schizophrenia" as the psycologist explains, meaning also, as the psycologist explains, that Perry did not know what he was doing was wrong or right, he followed and tried to be the same person who ninfluenced him, in this case it was Dick. Dick still did not need the Death Penalty, he already hated the penitentiary so if he was sent there for life he would've gone crazy, i believe a person would learn thier lesson better by going crazy then by taking the life from that person, then they have no time to learn thier lesson and others never really care about the consequences of others mistakes, so Dick and Perry did not truly show as a model of what not to do, but more of what to do when trying to get away with murder, they couldve have been shown as an example by going crazy then others wouldnt want the same fate.

SUSPENSEEEE....

Capote does an amazing job of creating suspense in this story the whole entire time. Even though the murders were pronouced at the beginning of the book, he still does a great job of keeping the suspense going. He not only draws you in, wondering weather or not Dick and Perry are going to be caught or not, but he keeps you on your toes. He also throws in information about Perry's past that stop and make you think, is this really a murderer? Then he snaps you back in by having Dick and Perry go off on some other adventure that involves something illegel or just not right. He also keeps us in suspense by wondering not only weather or not Dick and Perry are going to get caught, but what is going to happen to them in the end of the book. I bet that 50% of us would have gotten it wrong if we had tried to predict what had happened at the end of the book before we had read it. There were so many options for the consequences of Dick and Perry, some may say that their consequence of the death penalty may have been a little extreme, but hey it was a while back, makes me wonder if the consequence today would have been the same, disregauarding everything that happened, but if there had been a murder of 4 people in the house, i wonder if the consequence would have been the same. Capote did a fantastic job of creating a supsenseful environment as you continue to read. He chose to write it in 3rd person omnicent I think because it can give you a better view of waht is going on in this family's life and the fact that they don't know what is about to hit them. He does a good job of leaving out some good, juicy details until about the middle/end when you just totally get sucked into the book and then before you know it the book is done! Capote overall did a good job, I think of keeping the suspense alive throughout the whole entire book and not letting it die out at any time.

Two Deaths For Four

I do believe Dick and Perry should receive the death penalty. Our society has laws and consequences if those laws are broken. These consequences are to prevent crimes from happening because people don't want to go to jail or get the death penalty. If individuals commit these crimes with the understanding that they will be punished to the fullest extent then they should be. I find the death penalty appropriate because they took the lives of four people. An eye for an eye. Even though Dick didn't pull the trigger or use the knife he still stood by and watched a family suffer. He could have talked Perry out of it. He wasn't in any danger. If Dick would have put aside his macho male views four less graves would be filled. Just them being put in jail isn't good enough for me. During the trial someone said that the accused shouldn't be in jail because they might escape. Personally i don't think they deserve the luxury to sit in jail, interact with others and eat up the tax payer's money. Prison is for people who have committed minute crimes and can be released back into society. In my opinion those who kill for ridiculous reasons cannot be trusted.

An ordinary town or not?

"Holcomb stands on the high wheat plains of western Kansas, a lonesome area that other Kansans call "out there"" It reminds me of when I lived in Beaufort, South Carolina. How everyone knew each other and anything that happened within the small town everyone knew about it. There are never secrets in a small town everyone knows everything. Which are like the other towns that are book. They all have something different within the town, but the size is what is the same.

Every town has something within it that you remember it by. In the book Holcomb has a, "stark old stucco structure, the roof of which supports an electric sign-Dance-but the dancing has ceased and the advertisement has been dark for several years." In Beaufort we had cow statues that were in old town Beaufort that schools made every year.

What made Holcomb different were the murders that took place. "Those somber explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many old neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers." What happened on November 15,1959, made everyone rethink who they could trust, if they were safe, who did it, and how could someone within this innocent community even think about committing such a horrid crime.

The town is described not like any other small town but in a way you feel like there is an coldness to the town. Which is why Capote spends so much time describing Holcomb. He wants the readers to get the feel for where the murders took place, to sense how this could have happened in your town.

Response to “Brother, friends object to portrayal of Bonnie Clutter by Capote”

I found it really interesting that so many people did not like the way Truman Capote portrayed Bonnie Clutter in In Cold Blood. In this article, Bonnie’s brother, Howard Fox, tells that he is disgusted with the way Capote speaks of his sister. Bonnie’s two surviving daughters will not even have a word about the incident because they are so hurt by the book.

I now wonder about all the other characters in the book, if their personalities are true to self. After reading this article I question some of the facts, especially those about Dick and Perry. The book was published in 1966, after Dick and Perry were hanged. I wonder, if Dick and Perry had had a chance to read the book, would they have disagreed with any part it?

I decided to look up some criticism of In Cold Blood. It seems many people have thought that the book is not completely true. One website (the link below) stated that an ex convict, Joseph John Maloney, became an investigative reporter when he was released. “His view of Capote's account was that it was, at its core, a dishonest book.” This website also reads “…critics have challenged the authenticity of the book, arguing that Capote changed facts to suit his story, added scenes which never occurred, and re-created dialogue.”

With Capote now dead, we may never know if his book told the complete truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood

Objective - Subjective Narrator.

Truman Capote is an objective narrative writer. An objective writer writes from a third person view or from outside the story. It is like being a fly on the wall and just reporting what you see. And an objective writer doesn't show any emotions in his writing. A subjective writer includes their emotions in the story and doesn't let the reader interpret what they just read.

Since he telling a story about the murder of the Clutter family using objective writing is understandable. It is so when he describes the events that unfolded you can interpret it for yourself and not already have it laid out for you. It's like having/making your own personal opinion.

(78) "They first went into the furnace room inn the basement, where the pajama-clad Mr. clutter has been found sprawled atop the cardboard mattress box. Finishing there, they moved on to the playroom in which Kenyon had been shot to death." See how in that he didn't tell how he felt about the scene so that it was like you were staring at the murder with your own eyes. To experience what the investigators were looking at.

Writing in objective form makes you think more about what you just read as well. It's like you have to analysis everything that just happened. You feel all these feelings because you are not sure what one is to feel because the narrator isn't including his emotions.

In Cold Blood was definitely an attention grabber, as the story began we knew that the clutters were doomed, hence capote repeating the words "not knowing it'll be his last." These words were repeated throughout the begining of this novel to build the suspense tho we alread knew they were to be murder and we also knew that Dick and Perry would be the murderers, what we wanted to know was the reaction of the town, who was blamed, and how they got caught with the one connection that was left behind. Capote's foreshadowing helped to rock you in your boots trying to think about what was going to happen next and if Dick and Perry would ever be caught, but as we entered the courtroom in the story the ttension and suspense built, we started to ask ourselves, What would be wrong with someone to commit such crimes? and, How did they bring themselves to do it? but soon after we discover that there was something wrong, building the suspense up more making us wonder, Since we know something is wrong are they going to go to the psycho ward to get better, or rot in the jail cell? As we later uncover the duet seemed to get themselves locked up, but by now the suspense died down, bringing us to the final and most suspicious time, Were Dick and Perry ever going to set thier date for thier D-Day or would they get another court date? Capotes use of foreshadowing, to build the suspision, helps create a mood of distrust towards anyone in the book though we did already know the murderers, it helped to create a mourningful mood for those who lost the clutters but a suspicious one to anyone who later came into the book as a suspect. The suspision is why it's called the original C.S.I.

Not Your Decision

Is it your choice to decide someone else's life? How would you feel if your life was being decided by someone other that yourself? This is when your morals come in, and how you were raised is shown. Though Dick and Perry had committed the utmost crime of killing an innocent family, The Clutters, is it really any of our choice to decide the fate for these labeled murderers? Being raised on a Christian foundation I believe it's up to Jesus because we do not know this crime well enough to decide and if they were meant for death it would hit them soon enough.
Murder is not a good deed, but it certainly shouldn't be us to decide, no man is perfect we all have flaws.

In the Tenth Commandments, commandment 6 says " You Shall Not Murder," killing the Clutters was a horrible crime but wouldn't ending Dick and Perry's life without salvation be considered the same? We have no right to put people through death penalties, what if you were Dick or Perry wouldn't you hope for the slightest chance for salvation?

We are only using our emotions from what we have read in Capote's In Cold Blood but I know if we were there during the crime and during that time we would think differently, but this is just my opinion.

"The Ten Commandments." The Ten Commandments. N.p., 2007. Web. 6 Aug 2010..

The Death Penalty.

Anyone that kills deserves the death penalty. Motive or not, killing is wrong.We may have room in jails for these people, but if they were ever let back onto the streets, who knows what they would do.

Dick deserves the death penalty just as much as Perry Smith does. Doesn't matter if he didn't kill any of the family members he was there at the scene of the crime. Smith said in his statement that, "Dick went on making jokes about what had happened back there."

(256)Whether this was out of being uncomfortable about what just happened, killing people is not something to joke about. And if Dick really didn't want Smith to commit the actions to the crime, Why didn't he stop him? He could have stopped the events at anytime, but he didn't. Which makes him just as much apart of the crime as Smith.

At trail Perry hoped, "Maybe he'll give us a break, but that was not what Perry really believed, he believed what had written Don Cullivan; his crime was "unforgiveable" and he fully expected to "climb those thirteen steps"" I always believe hope is the last thing to die in you, and I know right there Smith's hope died. He knew that no matter what they were going to get hung. No one was going to forget or forgive them for what they did.

In the book you start to feel little sorry for the killers. Then you remember what they did and how they did it and then you wonder like Mrs. Meier did, "If either one was bothered by it." If they were ever bothered by it, it wouldn't matter because they killed innocent people. Finalizing their punishment is what needed to happen to have justice for the family that was murdered.

In the end both deserve the death penalty for the crime they committed. They became role models when "multiple murders have occurred in various points of the country", just days leading up to their trail. People thought it was right, but I think everyone should know right from wrong.

Death Sentence?

I do not agree with the death penalty. No one should be hanged because of their crime, no matter how cruel and appalling it may have been. In my opinion, the worst punishment would be to sit in solitary confinement for the rest of your life and have nothing to do but think about what got you there.

Perry despised his life in the cell of “the corner” so much that he attempted to kill himself. This shows how dreadful it was. By giving him the death sentence, he got what he wanted. Perry, the killer of four innocent people, did not deserve to get what he wanted.

Giving criminals the death sentence hurts their family members more than it hurts the criminals themselves. The families of criminals go through enough embarrassment and disgrace; they don’t deserve to be punished anymore by having to await the day of their family member’s death. Dick’s family is hurt so much because of the crime their son committed, and they were hurt even more by him being put to death. Dick’s parents didn’t deserve to go through all that because of their son’s mistake. They would much rather have had him live in a cell his whole life.

Some may argue that it is dangerous to keep such awful criminals alive in a jail near the homes of everyday Americans. In actuality, the cells that these criminals inhabit are way more confined and guarded than the cells of less intense criminals.

The death sentence is also very hypocritical. In most cases, those being put to death have killed someone. So you’re punishing someone for killing by killing, right? Well that’s wrong. No one should receive the death penalty.