Wednesday, April 15, 2009
In Cold Blood, Sections I and II
In these sections of ICB, questions might arise on many levels; for example, you may want to highlight the style of the text or the narrator; you may want to look at the facts that we're given and the allusions that are made beyond those facts; you may be interested in concepts such as fairness, innocence, or guilt; or you may be interested in contextual matters, such as the physical or cultural setting of the events in questions, contemporary occurences, or what has happened since that time. Whatever your interest, raise a question that you think is worth considering and/or do some research about an element of the text or idea that arises from the text.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My question is along the lines of fairness. Was it fair that the Clutters were killed so brutally? Did they have it coming to them?
ReplyDeleteIn my response, I talked about the family's point of view and what they might think of the situation. I'm sure as we read on we will discover more about situation.
My question asks whether or not the Clutters were, in fact, somewhat responsible for their own demise.
ReplyDeleteMy response focused on the topic of the frailty of the American Dream. The Clutters run this successful farm and are very well perceived in Holcomb, KS. However, there are some problems within the family, such as trying to cover-up the mother's mental illness and the pious Herb smoking (perhaps symbolism that they were slowly, indirectly killing themselves. Though, this may be a stretch). Finally, if they would have been less successful (less focused on the American Dream) would they have been (attempted to) be robbed?
Sorry for the delay... My memory's foggy.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the novel, there are numerous references to minority groups in a variety of lights. The Ashidas, the Japanese family living near to the Clutters, are well respected within the community. Other references in the novel are less kind: Perry Smith is referred to as a half-blood with numerous derogatory references made toward Indians. Gays are similarly disparaged throughout the novel. The novel is set in 1959, which was a period of open hostility toward many minority groups. How much of this portrayal originates in the culture and how much of it originates with the author?
In response to Paul's question, I think that the hostility toward minorities is more a sign of the times instead of the author's perspective. Capote shows these signs of racism only through dialogue said by other people or by situations that were told to him. I don't believe he ever says a racist remark himself. Capotes was a homosexual man living in the city and I think this made him more tolerable. I actually think he puts some of the racist dialogue in to show that the people of Holcomb are still just "country folk" and that are a littl behind the times.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lars:
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to place much blame, if any, on the Clutter family for what happened to them. They are largely portrayed as honest, hardworking people--better than most in their community--who seem to do nothing deserving their murders. Granted, they weren't perfect, as you pointed out with the mental illness and Herb's smoking. Other conflicts, such as the lawsuit against the man who crashed into Herb's trees, underscore the family's flawed nature. But the Clutters were real people, and real flaws are to be expected. I think it's also important to remember that In Cold Blood isn't fiction. While it may be fitting for Jay Gatsby and his dreams to die at the hands of a man with a gun, this is not the case in real life. Even if the Clutters were guilty of materialism, selfishness, or generally being shallow, these facts still don't warrant their being murdered, as might be seen in a piece of fiction. I view their murder an essentially random occurrence where the issue in question is less whether they might have "deserved" to be murdered, but rather what to do with those who would commit such an act with no genuine reason for doing so.
If there is a tension between the reality of the events and the form of the narrative (called by Capote the first nonfiction novel), do you think this is intentional? Are we to ask ourselves whether the victims "deserved" their deaths in ways we wouldn't if this were a news article? Or would we still ask that? And is it the style or something else at work?
ReplyDeleteIn relation to a comment Hanah made in class on Monday:
ReplyDeleteNow that I have read more of "In Cold Blood," I think Hanah made a good point about Dick. Dick describes Perry as "a natural killer-absolutely sane, but conscienceless, and capable of dealing, with or without motive, the coldest-blooded death blows" (55). Hanah said that this wasn't an accurate summation of Perry's character, but more of a self-description (correct me if I don't remember what you [Hanah] said accurately). Now that I have read more of the text, Dick's comment really is not accurate. Perry can't eat at the restaurants, won't stop talking about the murders, and even said to Dick, "I think there must be something wrong with us" (110). He is obviously not conscienceless, but it is also true that Perry has much more focus than Dick does. Is there bias on Capote's part? If so, can we make a real determination on these two characters or any other character based on "In Clod Blood" alone?
In response to Paul's question, after reading a lot of the book and hearing a lot of what we have discussed in class, I feel like we definitely have to consider the time period like we discussed in class. However, today I wanted to add that in the current world sexual orientation of being gay or not is looked upon a lot differently than it was back then. Although, I know the language Capote was using was definitely spoken back then, I really got the feeling that Dick and Perry were gay, despite the fact that Dick slept with many women. Maybe he was bi-sexual, which was probably unheard of during that time. I know that talking to my grandparents about this time period, they never thought being gay would ever become an accepted sexual conduct. Additionally, the minorities mentioned in the book I think highlights the time period America was in. I feel like it was unusual for an Japanese family to be setting in a rural small town America. Also, I feel like people had more pride in their race then than there is now. I think that these groups were truly minority since not many were here and they were proud of their uniqueness and is noticed in the society of the time Perry and Dick were living in.
ReplyDeleteIn response to both of the questions posted by Alex and Lars: The same question ran through my mind as I was reading the beginning of the story. I wondered if the Clutters had in some way brought the murder upon themselves. When the narrator began to show us some testimony from the point of view of the citizens of Holcombe who knew the Clutter family, they only commented on motives of revenge by other Holcombe citizens. Jealousy wasn't really mentioned.
ReplyDeleteDuring the description of the Clutter family, Capote emphasizes the perfection of, specifically, Nancy and Herb Clutter. Any individual in a fragile mental state could have been driven to murder if they experienced jealousy toward the Clutter family. A schoolmate of Nancy's could have been driven over the edge by her talents, good grades, good looks, and overall superiority to other people her age. Also, a citizen of the town could have been just as jealous of Herb Clutter--his money, high ranking positions in society, and successful business.
When we find out that the two murderers barely know Nancy and Herb, this theory is thrown out of the window, but I wonder why none of the townspeople bring it up in their discussions of the murder.
In response to Sarah Anne, I feel like calling Perry "honey" was Dick's way of comforting Perry as they continued to spiral out of control. Perry was questioning the couple's actions and was getting quite frantic about things,so I think Dick is trying to keep Perry calm by calling him "honey, baby, etc." Also, Dick already thinks less of Perry, so using these coy little phrases might keep Perry by Dick's side until Dick figures out their next move.
ReplyDeleteAnd also, I don't feel that the two men were gay. Perry sees Dick as a macho kind of guy, but is also disgusted by the way Dick yearns for young females. I don't think Perry would want to be with a man of that kind of character. But on the other hand, Perry may be searching for that kind of companionship and may over look the bad qualities he sees in Dick.
In response to Paul's question/comment:
ReplyDeleteI think that the portrayal of minorities can be mostly credited to Capote. I believe that he uses Holcomb (being a rural, small, isolated town) as a vehicle where he can express his own feelings of minorities (racial and sexual orientation) as he portrays them somewhat favorably. Capote might have done this in order to garner acceptance for his own minority group.
In response to Alex regarding the use of terms of endearment by Dick: While I agree that the terms might have been intended to be placating, I also think they had more subtle overtones. Terms of endearment, when used in certain contexts, sometimes imply dominance or superiority. I think Dick may have been using these terms to continue to reinforce his self-proclaimed superiority over Perry. As I mentioned in class, I think Dick uses Perry as a foil to establish his own normalcy. Dick uses Perry's social inferiority to assuage his own battered self-esteem. Anything Dick can do to maintain and reinforce that impression of inferiority, he does.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most telling examples of Dick's own inferiority complex, which I believe he is trying to compensate for, is his attraction to young girls. Pedophilia has long been associated with low self-esteem and social disorders.
However, the causation is not clear. Is Dick a pedophile because he has no self-confidence because he has failed at many of his goals in life and is viewed by society as a common criminal? Does Dick have low self-esteem because he is a closest homosexual in an age when homosexuality is considered a mental disease? If he is gay, is his confusion over his own feelings (in light of society's response) causing extreme sexual disorientation, and thus leading to pedophilia? Are Dick's actions some complex interaction between all of these? I don't think Capote is really explicit on what causes what, though he gives hints throughout the story that lend weight to each theory.
In response to Lars's original question:
ReplyDeleteI think the truly baffling thing is that it was more or less random. Granted, there was a rumour of money to be stolen, prompting the robbery, but I really don't think that the Clutters' success was at the root of the motivation to kill. If they thought the woman from the Postal Office had money, they would have killed her, too.
As for their familial problems, all families have problems. Every last one of them. No one is perfect, and above all, I think Capote wanted to point out that the 'perfect American family' is not perfect.
My question, addresses the ethical and/or moral nature of the novel. Is it justified that Capote publishes a non-fictional account of a very vicious murder and formulates it in the form of a fictional piece?
ReplyDeleteI tried to think of this question from the perspective of the Clutter family. I do not think that I would be comfortable knowing that the killings of my family members has been reproduced into a book that is solely based on investigations and interrogations of those involved (whether slightly or significantly) without much input from the surviving family members themselves (there was very little account of the surviving sisters). How about the quoted accounts of the conversations between Perry and Dick? Are these accurate, or are they fabricated by the author for literary effect... I would think the latter would be more presumable.
My main point is, reconstructing a true story of a case of this extremity and gruesomeness has no place in a novel-like book. Though it gives us readers tremendous insight, but I do not believe it pays homage to the surviving family members nor could we seriously use it to construct informed judgements given the various tools used by the author for literary effect.
In response to Alex's and Tom's account of the terms of endearment used by Dick toward Perry, I think this is a delicate question to address. We have to keep the era in which the story unfolds into perspective as well. In these times, as mentioned by Tom, being gay was considered a mental disease. On the other hand, as mentioned in class by our professor, the word gay had a completely different meaning. Whats more elusive however, is that we have no idea of the colloquial nature of this time period. Perhaps "baby" and "honey" were used by men of that time as we use "dude" or "man" now. This we do not know.
ReplyDeleteConversely, we must keep in mind that these men were in prison for a fair amount of time, and were cell mates. We are also aware of Dick's fairly consistent appetite for a sexual partner (we see this in his two ex-wives and fiances that he had concurrently in Mexico). Hence, whether it's a stereotype or not, perhaps we've all heard of the homosexual tendencies of prosion inmates, and anectdotes of dropping the soap in the shower. These are further qualified by the highly descriptive thoughts that Perry had of Dick's supposed masculinity, his smile and his looks.
With the above in mind, I wouldn't rule out that there was a sexual relationship between the two, conversely, neither would I confirm, because of the major differences that may elicit themselves if we undertake an investigation of the colloquial vernacular used during that particular time.
In response to JR's question I think there is nothing ethically really wrong with writing the novel. It is more of a social commentary using these gruesome acts than a memorial for the Clutters. Although there isn't much input from the surviving sisters, that may have had something to do with respect for their mourning, or their distance from Holcomb, Capote didn't really start his book until the killers were caught. So the surviving family already left. I think that Capote tried to create a novel that was as close to the true account as is possible. Although the book is not exactly a memorial to the Clutters and probably has upset the family, I think that there is nothing wrong with Capote writing the book, I think it highlights certain things in society that need to be more closely examined. But I do think that you have to read it knowing that Capote's account isn't absolute truth and not to take everything he says about both the family and the killers as what really was.
ReplyDeleteNote how many of us raise questions about, or are troubled by, why Dick and Perry committed the murders, their personalities, and their "normalcy." Juxtapose this with JR's commentary on the rendering of this real event into a nonfiction "novel" (Capote's term). Would we ask those questions, at least to the extent that we are, if we had read only a news account of the murders? What does this genre cause us to ask and think about, or cause us to focus on, that we might not have otherwise? How does it reflect the time in which Capote lived? How do those questions translate to the way in which we envision the legal system and how it acts and how it should act?
ReplyDeleteChecking to see how this will look
Deletechecking to see how this will look
DeleteYAY I feel smart I figured this blog thing out, haha.
ReplyDeleteMy question is:
How do you feel the investigators’ relationship with the community effects their investigation and how they reveal their progress on the case? What does the town’s reaction to progress in the case reveal about them?
I talked about Dewey's choice to withhold information from the town when he first was trying to track Dick and Perry down. I also discussed how the people gathered, but didn't seem to be a hostile crowd when the alleged murderers were brought into town.
In response to JR's question:
I think that Capote is justified in writing anything he would like to put out in the market, just as any editor and publisher have the right to. I think that as readers, people need to be mindful that a book cannot be taken word for word as the truth and realize authors may focus on any point they see fit, or any point that they find the most interesting. They may be a little gray area because of the notion that the book is supposed to be non-fiction, but the actual points of the case are adhered to.
I do not think that Capote is taking an event and perverting it for the sake of entertainment. In reading any newspaper or watching a newscast I can see there are all different slants, from paper to paper and network to network. Because I am not aware of the nature of Capote's relationship with Dick or Perry, I do not know how much was fabricated or perhaps not remembered exactly. If a good majority is fluff, I might feel a little more comfortable with the title 'Based on a True Story.' I hope that in the naming of the book, Capote isn’t being misleading, but there really is no way of being able to tell.
A gruesome murder, while not my favorite subjects, is a common topic in many forms of entertainment. I don’t think that this particular murder should necessarily be off limits just because it was an actual occurrence.
My question: Why is so much time devoted to the story of Lowell Lee Andrews? Part IV includes a detailed account of the murder of his family and aftermath (312-17) and later an account of his execution. His "presence" remains, more or less for the last thirty pages of the book.
ReplyDeleteI feel the investigators' relationship with the town is as it should be for such a high profile case. Dewey did a great job keeping information from the town and even when investigations were conducted with the families, Nye kept the alligations of murder from their knowledge and just had them believe the questioning was about check fraud. I believe since the investigators were so distanced from the town since they did not live right in Holcomb, they were more objective investigators then the police that first came to the scene. The town's reaction to the case shows they are obsessed with what had happened and had lost the sense of trust between each other. However, the postwoman, probably had the most distanced reaction since she didn't seem to care too much. However when the killers were brought in, the town's reaction showed how they were shocked it was no one they knew. I think the town was expecting it to be one of "them" by their lock buying actions and reaction to the killers. If the killers would have been someone from Holcomb, I believe they would have reacted in a more hostel manner, with a raging crowd because the killer lived among them. However, the shock of not knowing the killers overtook the town and resulted in an unusually quiet response.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ashley H:
ReplyDeleteI do not hold anything against Capote for writing this incredible piece of literature. I think it is well written and I agree that it posits many social and legal issues that we ought to think about and consider seriously. Here is my stance however on the ethical nature of his piece:
You mentioned that Capote tried to create a "novel" that was as close to the true story as possible. Please don't forget that Capote dubbed his piece a NONFICTION "novel". This means his story is a factual narrative written in the form of a novel. If he would have called it a FICTIONAL account based on a true story then I would have no issue. However, because the piece is based on factuality-a true story, I still remain unsure as to how "true" the story remains as Capote posits it... and here is why.
Capote offers quoted conversations between the charaters. Keep in mind that the murder occured in 1959, but Capote published his book in 1966-7 years after the event. How factually accurate, if accurate at all are these converstions between the characters? I would presume that Capote fabricated these conversations based on the interviews that he conducted with Dick and Perry, but are they fair, accurate, objective? The bottomline is, do they pay homage to the characters and show them for what and who they were? Those conversations are intrinsic in helping us constructing our views of the characters, hence my concern.
Secondly;
On several occasions, Capote constructs the(presumably hypothetical) psychological thought process of the characters especially Dick and Perry. I am confounded as to how he managed to tap into the abstact cognitions of these characters-regardless of how many interviews he conducted. Again these constructions are key in helping us form judements of the characters and their perceived intents. Are our judgements fair, honest, warranted?
In conclusion;
My intent is not to be a crass critic of this piece. I am just simply concerned about the fairness, and/or objectiveness with which these characters were portrayed. Does this posit Dick and Perry in a fair light? Is this really what they said or thought?
As our professor mentioned, the story written in this way forces us to ask different questions than if it was presented otherwise- in a newspaper or news broadcast. However, are the questions that this piece force us to ask fair in terms of the picture that it paints of the characters? What kinds of questions would we ask if we saw it presented otherwise?
First: JR, good points all around.
ReplyDeleteYou raise the issue of the novel being "nonfiction", which we take by the definition of the word to mean factual and accurate. However, according to Wikipedia, "non-fiction is an account or representation of a subject which is presented as fact. This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question." The fact that a non-fiction account can be false is an important point to keep in mind when analyzing ICB. It is my opinion that, as with all literary works, the author constructs it in such a way as to accomplish his personal goals. Like we've discussed in class, it seems apparent that one of Capote's main goals in writing In Cold Blood is to raise questions about how we as a society view crime (both the acts and the people involved) and it's punishment (both the legal trials and the sentencing). I think you are right in saying that Capote took some license in reconstructing the characters to accomplish the goal he intended for them. This goal, to portray their humanity, flaws, and to force the reader to consider these in relations to their crime, required Capote to develop their characters. One of the best ways to do this is by portraying their thought processes and dialogue.
You are right, however, in raising concerns that these might not be historically accurate. In fact, it is impossible to describe the thought process of someone else (most people, me included, find it nearly impossible to describe their own thought processes most of the time). So, by consequence, Capote's descriptions, which were constructed based on interviews with Dick and Perry, were necessarily inaccurate even if Capote tried to be as accurate as possible in his reconstruction.
As for their dialogue, I also doubt the historically accuracy of the book. Perhaps I'm weird, but I find it very difficult to remember the exact wording of conversations. At most I remember snippets and quotes. So I agree that most of the dialogue is probably of Capote's invention, based on what he thinks the characters would have been saying and thinking at the time. However, the exact wording is not as important as the content/meaning of these conversations, which Capote could have reconstructed faithfully without using the exact same words. Whether or not he did that is another issue.
Second: In response to Dr. Ris's questions, I think that the fact that the story is presented in the medium of a novel is very important to how the subjects are viewed. When one reads about a crime in the newspaper, or hears about it on TV, it is most often just the facts of the case. While possible motivations for the crime are sometimes discussed, the discussion is generally brief. Portraying the event in a novel, however, allows the reader to better get to know the characters involved. One simply way it does this is through the time involved. Novels take a lot longer to read than a one column newspaper article, and thus have the ability to delve deeper into the actions. Secondly, as a correlary to time, reading a novel requires a much more significant investment on the part of the reader. In my opinion and experience, I am much more likely to try to understand the complexities of an issue if I have invested a lot of time in learning about it. So, in reading a novel, not only do I dedicate more time to learning the facts, but I also dedicate more time to thinking about and trying to understand them than if they had been presented in another medium. I think this holds true for a lot of people.
In addition to the time issues, I think that telling the story in the form of a novel brings other benefits. As a society, we are encouraged to analyze and question certain genres of literary works more fully than others. I think that novels and poems sit at the highest end of this spectrum of critical analysis, while non-fiction sits at the bottom. As a example: when is the last time you read a critical analysis of a history book? Or heard of a class that dealt with understanding and analyzing non-fiction? The fact that we analyze novels more ties strongly into Capotes goal.
In response to JR, Tom, etc...
ReplyDeleteMy issue with In Cold Blood also has to do with the "non-fiction" aspect of the book. I believe it can be agreed that Capote forces the reader to consider aspects of society at the time (homosexuality, crime, rural lifestyle etc...).
The question: Is it ok for Capote to use someone else's tragedy to propagate his own agenda?
My question:
ReplyDeleteWhat might Capote’s portrayals of the legal system, the inmates on death row, and the executions that occur suggest about his views on capital punishment?
Overall, I took the book as a critique of the practice. In coming to this conclusion I looked specifically at the character of Lowell Lee Andrews, how he is portrayed as somewhat childish and how Capote's rather sympathetic rendering of this seemingly heartless killer raises questions of sanity, many of which we have already discussed in class. I also discussed Capote's inclusion of detailed descriptions of the executions, as well as the typically extended period of time between conviction and execution as part of Capote's critique.
In response to Matt:
ReplyDeleteI also addressed the issue of Andy in my journal. Capote seems to use him in order to raise questions about the justice system's use of capital punishment. When I first read the description of his crime, I was appalled by his character. However, the prolonged description of him and his interactions with those on death row serve to humanize him, and in a way, bestow a certain sense of innocence on him, through his being portrayed as childlike. These portrayals work together to raise the question of whether we do society a disservice by executing young men like Andy, preventing them from contributing to society later in life in the name of rectifying their past mistakes. It is hard to imagine the Andy described as living on death row as the man who brutally murdered his own family, and again, I think the question of whether the law adequately judges the moral culpability of people like Andy based on their sanity comes into play.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Tom and Kate;
ReplyDeleteTom, you offer a great response and a good analysis, but you seemed to have misinterpreted the point that I am making.
First of all, I did not base my response off the definition of the word "nonfiction" which you defined above; I based it off the work "nonfiction novel" which is what Capote has dubbed his piece. According to dictionary.com, a non-fiction novel is a "factual or historical narrative written in the form of a novel" this is what Capote wrote and as you described above (as I also referenced) is great and Capote has done a great job in constructing a story that encourages us to think about many social and legal issues. That however, suits Capote's personal interests and/or goals which is evidenced by debates/conversations in class-- much respect to Capote for accomplishing pickling our brains.
Secondly, I absolutely do not expect Capote to rewrite a verbatim account of the events that happened over a period of several years. I simply pointed that out to show one of the possible ways in which the characters personalities, goals, intentions may have been skewed or misrepresented. Same reason for my second example- the thought processes of the characters.
You seem to focus on the author’s attempt to reach his personal goals for the book, my focus however, is on the fairness and more importantly the homage that is granted to the characters themselves-- not on Capote's accomplishment of non-accomplishment of his literary goals. I do not believe it is ethical (not in the least) to reconstruct a real-life tragedy (especially of this magnitude) with the intent of reshaping the characters in order to "accomplish the goal he {Capote} intended for them" as you stated above. This is what I question. Whether Capote attempts to tell the story with utmost faithfulness or not, I do not agree with the notion that it is ok for an author to reproduce an altered variation of any tragedy in a novel form-- regardless of the author’s purpose. Perhaps I would challenge the ethical nature of any “nonfiction novel”. In any case, there are countless other avenues that can be used to both reach out to, and encourage readers to think about vital societal issues.
Again I’ll reiterate, I would have absolutely no issue if this was fiction. However, the fact that this was a real tragedy that happened, a tragedy that affected the lives of many, caused perhaps national headlines, and a string of other similar tragedies around the nation is why I do not support any reshaping the event and its characters to suit “his {Capote’s} personal goals” as you said. I cannot accept an authors’ attempt to fiddle with this real event (even in the slightest way) to simply meet his literary goals or send us a message. That can be done by other means.
In essence, Kate put it best... "is it ok, to use someone else's tragedy to propagate your own interests"-- whether your interests serve the purpose doing good.
In response to Matt's question about Lowell Lee Andrews: I think it is important to make comparisons between the two murderers that we've gotten closer to throughout the novel and the various inmates on death row that we meet in the last few chapters. We've had almost a 360 degree view of Dick and Perry throughout the novel, but we get that really light, news article like summary of the events that surround the murders that Lowell Lee Andrews committed and the murders that George York and James Latham committed and a very shallow account of their personality. When comparing these inmates to Dick and Perry, I think we would say Perry and Lowell Lee are similar--they both committed murder because of a mental illness. Dick is more comparable to George and James with regard to the randomness of the crimes. George and James basically go across the country killing people for fun; this reminds of how Dick would run over random dogs walking along the side of the road.
ReplyDeleteMaking these comparisons and dividing the criminals into groups automatically makes me compare the two groups as well. Who is guiltier? Which group is worse? When deciding between the new characters, I know my opinion right away: George and James are worse than Lowell Lee. I have more sympathy for Lowell Lee because of his mental issues. Then, when I compare this to Dick and Perry, I actually think that Perry is guiltier. Perry is the one who pulled the trigger, and Dick didn’t kill anyone (from the evidence in the text). I think Capote includes these characters in the text to show the reader that he/she might not be so sure of his/her opinions in various situations. It causes the reader to reflect on himself/herself. This also puts the reader in the place of the judge or jury. They deal with many murderers, but what constitutes less or more guilty? What makes one murder worse than another murder?
In response to Jon...
ReplyDeleteI think that there is an implied critique that goes beyond the death penalty and extends to other parts of the criminal justice system. Specifically on the death penalty, however, you see a number of worrying signs in the case that Capote highlights: the lawyers' lack of interest in the case, the evidence designed to stir the feelings of the jurors (pictures), the multiple discussions of the M'Naughten rules. Later, the descriptions of executions give a similar chilling effect to almost anyone with a heart:
"They don't feel nothing. Drop, snap, and that's it. They don't feel nothing."
"Are you sure? I was standing right close. I could hear him gasping for breath."
"Uh-huh, but he don't feel nothing. Wouldn't be humane if he did."
"Well. And I suppose they feed them a lot of pills. Sedatives."
"Hell, no. Against the rules. . . ."
Capote? Against the death penalty? I would say it is a decided yes.
In response to Dr. Ris's question,
ReplyDeleteI think the portrayal of this story in a novel form, in many ways humanizes the accused. It paints a picture of these individuals and shows that they are human beings just like us who may have given in and/or failed due to challenging times in their lives. The novel shows the sensitive side of Perry, the love that Dick has for his family and Perry's being able to connect with and teach young kids (guitar lessons etc). This forces to take a more reasoned opinion of the accused and not immediately dismiss them as horrible human beings-- or perhaps even non-humans.
By detailing their lives, it forces us to ask the question of "why?" Why did they commit such an act, and Capote constructs a foundation for us to analyze and form our own opinions of why this murder may have occurred.
Usually in a news broadcast or a newspaper article, we see mugged photos of the accused, and we only here accounts of the "facts of the case", these accounts more often than not, stack the cards against the accused. There is often no account of their lives, their challenges-- nothing that shows they are humans just like us.
In response to Kelsey...
ReplyDeleteI think you make a valid point by taking note of how we look at different cases and how we feel differently about each one. Isn't every murder awful and loss of maybe an innocent life? I think being on the jury of cases like these would be very difficult. Everyone has their own opinion. I feel like Dick is guiltier than Perry because it seems like Dick is persuading Perry to commit the murders. I never know what I would do in situations like these. I say one thing now, but later I might change my mind. And everyone is making such a great job in arguing the different points, so I feel like it would be difficult to come to any "logical" conclusion. Is the theory of eye for an eye justice?
In response to Dr. Ris...
I feel like the audience is almost like the people of Holcomb. Capote makes us wonder how could this ever happen? And it just seems so random, so what's from stopping the next person from killing an innocent family. Like JR said, the novel is rich with detail which contrasts a newspaper report, which only gives us the bare minimum. We are automatically drawn in because every thing is so real and we can easily relate to the characters. Also, I think that Capote wants to challenge his readers to think and have discussions just like these. :)
Wow...thoughtful responses from everyone.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kate, I have wavering feelings of whether or not Capote is using these murders as a way to propogate his own agenda.
First, I feel like when he decided to write about this murder, it was not because he was defending Perry or even his anti-death penalty feelings. I think he was simply fascinated by the randomness of the brutal murder and wanted to get to know who the Clutters were and the people who killed them. I think his relationship with Perry and his anti-death penalty stance actually developed as he researched more and more and got to know the "characters."
I agree that Capote inserted specific dialogue and may have left out certain details but can we blame him for forming an opinion? Especially one that we believe is based on facts. Don't we all form our own opinions of people everyday? Our justice system alone is based on the opinion of the jury. Lawyers defend and accuse people by inserting certain dialogue and by leaving details out.
No one disagrees that the murders of the Clutter family was absolutely horrible. I think Capote just wanted to shed light on the fact that everyone is human. We will always judge on another. He proved that thorough the accounts of the murder, the dialogue between the murderers and through his own opinions.
In response to Hanah's most recent comment:
ReplyDeleteHanah writes, "Lawyers defend and accuse people by inserting certain dialogue and leaving details out," pointing to a parallel between the judicial system and the artistic license of Capote that we have been discussing here. I really like this point. This similarity between trial and novel illustrates the fact/fiction interaction that I've been finding interesting. But I think I was seeing more of a gap between fact and fiction in the text. For instance, the difference between Andy's treatment and that of Dick and Perry points to a basic difference in potential between journalism (the account of Andy's crime) and fiction (the exploration of D and P's subjectivities, their "personhood"). In this sense, the two contrasting genres sort of question one another's ability to engage, among plenty of things, the minds of murderers.
But Hanah points out an opposite and equally interesting relationship, the sameness of the two modes. That is, if fiction "reconstructs" or even simply "constructs" its events and characters, so too does the judicial system! Our search for objective truth by trial creates another fiction (or pair of fictions), from which the jury must choose one that is most convincing. (And as this message board shows, we readers are very much on jury duty here.) I hope it's not necessarily dismissive to call something with such high stakes a "fiction." But it's fair to say that Capote explores the artificial nature (as in artifice) of what we call "fact."
As for where Capote is going with this exercise, I think I agree with everyone who has said that the text casts doubt on the standards and attitudes that justify capital punishment. But coming to that conclusion by these means, I hope, shows that it's a pretty complex doubt, certainly not unequivocal, and relying on multiple modes of thought in exploring the problems at stake.
Paul's comment (where he quotes the conversation at the execution) mentions the crime scene pictures shown to the jurors in the trial. This scene provides a good, specific example of the interaction between judicial fact and Capote's fictional license. While the pictures are being displayed, one passage reads:
ReplyDeleteWhile this was being done, Hickock's father, addressing a journalist seated near him, said, "The judge up there! I never seen a man so prejudiced. Juse no sense having a trial. Not with him in charge. Why, that man was a pallbearer at the funeral!" (Actually, Tate was but slightly acquainted with the victims, and was not present at their funeral in any capacity.) (281)
What initially jumps out here is a particularly literary technique, employed in various ways throughout the book: basically, the mix of multiple perspectives. Here, it's Dick's father that momentarily takes the focus of the narrative. But more specifically, it is a flawed and biased perspective that takes the focus: Dick's father is no legal expert, and moreover has his facts wrong, as our knowing narrator is kind enough to note. This isn't a jab at Dick's father but just another part of a multi-layered narrative. As authors have always realized, reality is not a homogenous whole but a mix of interacting perspectives, all of which can be called "flawed," because they are limited in themselves. But the combinations of these parts allows us readers to deduce a better whole. (My response to the father is that there IS sense in having a trial, but maybe a better one-- maybe realized in the more complex literariness of Capote's text.)
And what a fun passage to think about: the father (a character, a very literary device) addresses who else but a journalist-- a reporter of facts. This journalist in the story, to go a bit further, might be Capote himself, wearing the two hats as he takes notes for his non-fiction novel.
In response to Jon Tebbs and the portrayal of death row…
ReplyDeleteThe particulars that Capote chose to focus on were a little strange to me. He talked about showering and changing clothes once a week, which is really awful and probably doesn’t make for very good conditions. Physically, they received the bare minimum that taxes would pay for; they were only trying to keep these guys alive until the inevitable. However, Capote talks about how they kept Andy busy with books, and even Dick was reading. It was like it was ok to stimulate the minds of potentially insane people who have committed murders, but it is not ok to let them live out their sentences in a jail cell rather than a coffin. Then again, it may not be such a good idea to have a bunch of people locked up, in their own filth, have violent pasts, and be bored.
‘The Corner’ where the executions actually take place, is also weird to me. They have witnesses climb over various stored equipment to view someone’s life being ended. It is like Kansas is trying to keep their executions something that they hide in the back shed, among the rubbish leftovers of the prison.
With the way that Death Row was portrayed, it was like the death penalty was an escape from death by boredom. These prisoners were restricted in a lot of ways that other prisoners were not and to live your life out in an alternative boiling hot and freezing old metal environment, with limited means of interacting with other inmates, waiting on appeals for years and no chance of rehabilitation seems worse than hanging in a glorified storage closet. I don’t think Capote was necessarily for the death penalty, but he made it seem that at least Perry had thoroughly prepared himself for it, judging by his behavior at his execution.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile In Cold Blood, through Capote's account, brings up many issues that can be discussed and debated, let's not forget that Dick and Perry calculated and killed 4 people. Capote's humanization of these murderers, whether just or unjust, amounts to a perssuasive piece. It would be interesting if we could compare the reactions and commentary of other reporters and/or if we had another account in which to compare. Perhaps, and likely, another narrator/author would have a different rendering.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jon Tebbs' question, I think that Capote is definitely against capital punishment, but what I think is more striking about this book is that he seems to really be trying to get the point across that insanity should be taken into much more account and that the M'Naughten rule is unjust. I think that was the reason he delved so deep into Perry's past and also why he included all the psychiatry and other inmates in the last part. I think that what he was trying to do was to show people a different side of things, and that you can be crazy, but seem completely "normal".
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lars first post.. "My question asks whether or not the Clutters were, in fact, somewhat responsible for their own demise."
ReplyDeleteI feel that the Klutters have taken every step within reason to avoid their fate. Mr. Klutter did not carry cash, they did not have a safe, and they did not appear to have any enemies. I guess in a symbolic sense when looking at the issue of smoking and covering up the mothers death they were setting themselves up for a form of destruction. They could in a sense be setting themselves up for the destruction of their families innocents, but I feel that is a stretch.
In response to JR's post "My question, addresses the ethical and/or moral nature of the novel. Is it justified that Capote publishes a non-fictional account of a very vicious murder and formulates it in the form of a fictional piece?"
ReplyDeleteFor a novelist to publish a story like this I agree that there are serious ethical questions that need to be brought to light. How the family will be perceived, how the community will be perceived, and how the murderers will be perceived must all be taken into account.
Although it is technically a fictional piece the actual events and people are real, therefore they must be represented in a truthful light. Changing the perception of the people involved would be unethical, especially if they made the killers look innocent or the family look deserving of death.
Since his book showed the aspects of the case in a truthful light he is actually performing an ethical duty. According to the 1934 federal communications act the duty of broadcast is to act in the public "interest, need and necessity." Even though this is a novel and not made for boardcast, this quote fits the dilemma well.
In response/agreement with JR:
ReplyDeleteI feel that Capote, somewhat selfishly, used this tragic event to advance forth his own agenda (and fame?). He is obviously, in my opinion, against the death penalty and it is somewhat disturbing that he used the Clutter's to do so. I would have been more comfortable with Capote calling this "fiction based on true events" or something along those line. Because, when i read ICB i kept asking how Capote could know whether or not a dialogue happened exactly as he wrote it did...
KYLE'S Question and Response:
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of effect did Dick’s general refusal to talk, both to Capote and to the detectives, have on our interpretations of what happened?
I mainly focused on how it hindered us in getting a full picture of the murders, and possibly made Dick less sympathetic than Perry was able to be portrayed. Not that Perry was someone the reader really pitied, but still there were some redeeming qualities and excuses present.
Responses:
To Ashley's question: I think the relationship with the community had several effects on the local detectives. 1st it made them all the more motivated to put long hours into this case, because of the pressure of their neighbors and, though I don't think any of them were close to the Clutters, the fact that something could happen so close to home bothered them and they had to do something about it. We also see that it affects the home life of Dewey as it prevents him from being able to retire on a farm as he always wanted.
The relationship Dewey has with the local reporters is also unique. While we generally think of small towns as having no secrets because everyone knows everyone, in this case the closeness of the community helped the Detectives keep new developments under wraps. Because the local reporters were presumably affected by the murders on the same level as everyone else in the close knit community, they were just as interested in seeing justice done as everyone else. This, in combination with the pre-existing small town relationship with the police, kept them from reporting big details that needed to be kept secret.
As for the community, the fact that they were "disappointed" that no local was behind the murders may be a reflection of their small town outlook. Everything that happened in Holcomb was done in Holcomb, and people were generally simpler folk. They couldn't really understand an outsider being responsible for something that big and they weren't calloused to the idea that senseless violence just happens, as someone from NYC at that time may have been.
In response to JR.
Overall I'm not opposed to how Capote handled his work. I think that the beginning chapters of the book almost serve as a tribute to the Clutter family. Each member has a chapter extolling his or her virtues and really letting the reader get to know the kind of person who was about to have their life senselessly taken away. As far as the lack of interviews from family members goes, I would think that the provided some of the background given on the family itself, and I don't know how much Capote was able to speak to them, so I won't condemn him for that. That being said I am aware that one of the Clutter girls was not happy about a certain section that she felt she should have been consulted over. The mention of the wedding that followed the murders was apparently mishandled and I do believe it was inappropriate to mishandle anything relating to a surviving clutter in a "non-fiction" work.
My general overall feeling though, is that the book provides a fair representation of events, and that this is a story that needed to be told.
FROM TAVIS:
ReplyDelete1. In response to Alex's and Lars' questions, about if the Clutters death was due to their own actions, I strongly disagree with that possibility. I can not rule out the option completely in any scenario that another person's jealousy or anger towards a person's lifestyle may lead them to an inexcusable action of murder. However, in this specific case the murders did not personally know their killers. Now there is an interesting factor in how the killers found out about the Clutters. A former farmhand (Floyd) had the impression that they were more wealthy than the family truly was. He communicated this while telling his cellmate (Dick) that his former boss was an excellent man and gave good quality work. Dick heard these stories and weren't impressed with anything other than the opportunity to become wealthy. I can understand that it is the Clutters fault they died, because they seemed wealthy, but this should not be considered a legit reason to murder a family.
The Clutters were good people who respected others and worked to help meet the needs of their neighbors. If they didn't live the way they did, they may have never been murdered. However, if they didn't live the life that they did, they wouldn't have lived admirably. It can be interpreted that it is better to have lived and died young then to never to have lived and died old. I believe if the Clutters ever found out that they would have to changes their actions to have survived, the only thing they would have done was locked their door at night. So maybe they were too trustworthy, but in the end, steps done by victims made lead to their demise, but it is unfair to blame the demise of victims on their actions. It is always the fault of the criminal would made the conscious decision to murder.
2. Dick's lack of desire to discuss his story with the detectives and Capote led to his own demise. If Dick would have told his true story (he never murdered another human being), he may have not been executed by hanging. As an accomplice he probably would have spent his entire life in jail, but he would not had to have died the way he did. What is interesting is that he started to fight for himself (by letter writing and finally utilizing his high intellect) at the last possible moments. The story in the early chapters showed limited mention of Dick's vantage point, but towards end as he approached death, you heard more from Dick's side. At this stage, he realized his errors and lack of judgement and wanted to improve upon his mistakes.
As difficult as Perry's life was, an audience can be sympathetic to Dick's plight as he was not the guilty murderer (despite his strong statements of leave no witnesses contrasting his weak actions of no killing). Instead Dick's decision to hide his thoughts and weaknesses made him seem cold and ruthless (you did, however, feel for his family who seemed to be high quality people). If this story was told from Dick's vantage point you might have gotten the impression that Dick decided to have mercy on the other people and deemed their murders unnecessary (again this is difficult to determine as he was the planner of the "score"). Even after reading this book, we don't have a true picture on who Dick and why he behaved in the way he did. As the reader, you deem him as not normal, disturbed, and pathetic, but if his story was told correctly he may have been seen in a better light. Of course, due to his poor choices, his actions led to a justifiable result.
FROM ALEX DOYLE:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex Blood's question about fairness and if it was fair for the Clutters to be murdered...I absolutely do not think it was fair for them to be murdered....they were the stereotypical family that rose above any hardships they encountered. They had a close family that everyone in their town knew and respected. I don't think its fair for anyone to ever be brutally murdered, but I don't think anyone in the Clutter family or their town ever could have expected anything so terrible and they definitely didn't deserve it. It was totally unfair for 2 murderers to take the lives of so many people for a measly sum of money. the only thing fair here, is that the murderers were caught.
In response to Lars' question about if the clutters were responsible for their own death.... again, I absolutely do not think so. They were peaceful and kept to themselves...unless they were helping their community. I don't think there could be a less responsible family (in terms of responsible for their own death). I guess I could see how they weren't exactly trying to prevent a break-in by not locking their doors, but that certainly doesn't mean they were responsible for their own brutal murder. In fact, I think Dick and Perry were so determined to break into their house, that they would have knocked down the door anyway. The Clutter family had no neighbors so no one would have even heard if they shot off the door handle with their gun, or simply kicked it in, or broke a window. So, while it was in poor judgment to leave their door open, it certainly wasn't their fault that they were murdered.
I do not believe it can be argued that the Clutter's are "at fault" for their death. It can be said that their circumstances led to their demise (perception of wealth, not locking the door, etc...) but it is not their fault. I do not think Lars is arguing that. The Clutter's did not pull the trigger on themselves, and they cannot be blamed for the choice and actions of others. Again, I think Lars was asking if their way of life and circumstances inadvertently contributed to their deaths, but not that they share responsibility.
ReplyDelete