How In Cold Blood Capote Desensitized Our Ability to Differentiate Between Truth and Fiction. Reading In Cold Blood brought me a new literary and psychological understanding. I realized what such a heinous murder would do to a town like Holcomb, Kansas. I always took my childhood for granted; nothing bad happened in our town, nothing equal to the ugliness of the Clutter murder. After rereading In Cold Blood, I read every piece of literary criticism on the book as I could find.
In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote is about a true murder case of the Clutter family which occurred in 1959. Capote reveals the real story of the murders, Richard (Dick) Hickock and Perry Smith, to people. He managed to turn this case into more like a novel, considering that he wasn’t there for almost all of the back stories and he had to use his imagination and work around what has been said to create an actual story. In order to create more of a fiction novel, Capote mixes his journalistic elements with fictional elements, he inserts in his own opinion and creates a story. And finally, I think Capote’s main purpose in writing this book is to put out to the readers a different perspective on criminals and convince them to be more sympathetic
Capote strays back and forth from present day Holcomb in 1959, to the day-to-day life on the road in Perry and Dicks point of view. The way Capote goes back and forth in his novel give an insight into the lives of not only the Clutter family but the true behind the scenes of the murders Perry and Dick, who in themselves have issues of abandonment and mental illness in their pasts. The novel is nonfictional, but “In Cold Blood 's” credibility is not what it is said to be. The famed author “didn’t tell the truth,” KBI detective Harold Nye told George Plimpton (Plimpton). Thus his truthful non-fiction story doesn’t hold a hundred percent truth.
Crime is seen by the public opinion is unorthodox as well as cruel, in turn the public believes that only sick and twisted people from horrid backgrounds are capable of committing crime. Novelist and journalist Truman Capote writes in his book, In Cold Blood, about the Holcomb, Kansas murders of the Clutter family. The general public believed that the criminals were insane, but Capote wanted a deeper insight into the story by analyzing the crime and the murderers. Through embedding himself in his characters, fiction-style nonfiction, irony, foreshadowing, repetition, and cinematic style of writing, Truman Capote portrays crime and evil as normal human emotions that are poorly expressed in unwanted or hostile situations. As a young child, Truman Capote was plagued with distress.
This might be to serve an underlying purpose. Perhaps Capote himself truly opposed the death penalty? Although Capote stressed so vehemently the horrors of the Clutters' cold-blooded murders, Capote was trying to convey that their murders were not the only ones committed in cold blood. He was stating that the death penalty was also a form of cold-blooded killing, one that served no other purpose besides revenge.
Genre: I believe In Cold Blood is a narrative novel due to how the author describes the events that happened through his own perspective. However, he does it in such manner that he does not intervene with the events that happened. Thus, making it as if this was like a series of newspaper stories published through interviews conducted by him. Subject: This narrative novel retold the murders of the Clutter family conducted by Richard “Dick” Hickock and Perry Smith. The author retold these events as a non-fiction novel as new and creative way of expressing journalism.
To fully understand the purpose of In Cold Blood, one must explore Capote's strategy in writing such a tale. In his "In Cold Blood," Capote raises the possibility of rational order without ever fully endorsing it, often revealing that random and accidental events shape the history of the crime. Because of this, we as readers cannot pinpoint one exact reason for the incidents that occurred at the Clutter house that fateful night, and are forced to sympathize with two opposing characters within the story, Perry Smith and Alvin Dewey. Capote's narrative method also emphasizes two language systems--the first based on punishment, the second on psychological analysis of personality-- that demonstrate opposing ways of judging human behavior, thus making it impossible for one to judge the killers or the novel from one specific viewpoint. This example, and the example regarding two channels for reader sympathy, illustrates the theme of dualism presented in the novel.
First, Capote knew that he was creating a new art form when he wrote his greatest work, In Cold Blood. He was a writer for the New Yorker, which gave him good practice in gathering important facts It took him six years to complete this book because that is the amount of time that passed from the time the Clutters were murdered to the time the criminals were put to death. Truman Capote wanted his novel to be as close to the true facts as possible. He painstakingly gathered information from Holocomb, Kansas, the site of the murders, and various other settings. In reference to Capote?s obsession for accuracy, Gerald Clark wrote In Cold Blood may have been written like a novel, but it is accurate to the smallest detail, ?immaculately factual?
Furthermore, the author explains more on the reason he chose to lie about the story of how he killed the young man, “... even that story is made up. I want you to feel what I felt, I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth” (179). In this quote, O’Brien is delivering a message that he falsifies the story in order to make the audiences have a better insight of what he saw, to put them in the situation that he was in, to understand how he felt at that moment … Nevertheless, the most important intention is to signify that sometimes, the stories that one knows of, which might have never occurred at all, is more convincing than
In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one. First to determine if terrorism is in fact right or wrong we must understand what it is. Although there is not a universal definition to describe terrorism I relate closely to Walzers definition which is: “a random murder of innocent people, intended to frighten a population into demanding that their governments negotiate for their safety.” In Walzer’s article “Terrorism” (Cahn, 239) he lists the purpose and methods of terrorism as to “destroy the moral of a nation or a class, to undercut its solidarity; its method is the random murder of innocent people.” Innocent people or noncombatants, as people call them, are described as normal working civilians who do not play a role in the government or have any control of what is happening politically. These innocent people are the ones who are targeted with no regards to political affiliation, the only thing that makes them the target is simply belonging to a certain group.