After reading the entire book:
Capote effectively uses a rhetorical device called antithesis. Antithesis is the contrast of ideas or words in parallel constructions. Remember Julius Caesar (heavy sigh)? Brutus says, “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” That’s an excellent use of antithesis, and it definitely touches an audience in distinct and varied ways. Where do you notice Capote’s use of antithesis? How does it affect you as the reader?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteAntithesis is not limited to just one line, as in the example. Rather, it can involve whole paragraphs or chapters in juxtaposition.
I want to answer this question because I feel it has gone very ignored. I believe that Capote using Antithesis when he is describing the feeling of Holcomb towards the two murders. Similar to what Brutus felt by saying, "Not that I loves Caesar less..." and such, you could also say that there was a similar type of feeling in the people of the small town.
ReplyDeleteMany of them (even those who knew the family) wanted to punish Perry and Dick for their crime, but they didn't want them to recieve a death sentence. So, they didn't want to kill Dick and Perry, but they wanted revenge for the Clutters more. They chose the death sentence for them because as Dick explained later on, it was, in a way, all about revenge. If a person does something terrible against other people, it would be normal to want revenge. But as people, we don't want to see others die and be the cause of their death, but we believe they should pay for their crime. This affects the reader by making them thinik about it themselves. After they had gone through the experience of getting to know the murderers, do they still believe they deserve to die 'in cold blood'?
It puts the reader in the same situation as the townspeople, where I wasn't sure if they should be killed. It makes the reader feel like they don't want Dick and Perry to be killed, but they want them to pay for what they did to an innocent family.
This can effectively create conflict within people and make them think about their own opinions in the situation.
-Mariela V.
Capote uses antithesis when he describes how the killers made the victims more comfortable. He questions “what kind of person would do that—tie up two women, the way Bonnie and the girl were tied, and then draw up the bed covers, tuck them in, like sweet dreams and good night?” (Capote 103). He contrasts the idea of a merciless killer and a caring, maternal being. This description was disturbing to me as a reader because I associate being tucked in and saying sweet dreams with a loving relationship between a parent and child. Because this is being done by a killer and his victims, it feels wrong and perturbing. Capote expands on this idea by noting that the pillow and the mattress box were also to make Kenyon and Mr. Clutter more comfortable. It seems almost as if the Clutters are guests within their own home and the killers are trying to make them feel warm and cozy when in reality they plan on killing the family.
ReplyDeleteBefore seeing this blog, I had noticed that throughout the novel, Capote was continually using antithesis as a means to convey scenes, details, and occurrences. Not only were the statements concise and relevant, they helped to place thorough emphasis on the jarring differences between the two items being contrasted. For example, on page 281, Capote cleverly weaves a comparison around the religious convictions of Don Cullivan and Perry Smith through their physical actions, and not by any means through an analyzing of inner attitudes. Just before dining on a Sunday dinner hosted by Perry, Don gives thanks, during which "the host, head unbowed, cracked his knuckles as Cullivan, with bowed head and palms together, intoned [a prayer]." Here, though Capote focuses solely on the head and the hands, he is able to effectively display Perry's flippant attitude towards religion in correlation to Don's sincerity in his faith, thus giving the reader a clear mental picture of the situation. After reading this section, I understood that Perry would be forever skeptical of Christianity, instead always looking to his “yellow bird” for salvation. However, another underlying statement exists in this scene of spiritual contempt versus spiritual piety: a sort of “change” in the unlikely friendship between Don and Perry. Don has come to acknowledge the fact that Perry is unwilling to accept the salvation offered by Don’s religion, and respects it. No longer is Don acting as a missionary to convert Perry into a Christian, but as a friend who is there for him during what are soon to be his last and hardest moments. Perry later on goes to say, “The truth is, you’ve done more for me than any what you call God ever has. Or ever will. By writing to me, by signing yourself “friend”. When I had no friends” (Capote 283).
ReplyDeleteA central antithesis of In Cold Blood is illuminated by the French poem that serves as its prologue. The translation of the poem that I have chosen to use reads as follows: “Brothers and men that shall after us be, let not your hearts be hard to us: for pitying this our misery, ye shall find God the more piteous.” A rather conspicuous theme, of both the poem and the book, is the perversion of the innocent (by events, by people, by ideas, by themselves) and how it affects society, transcends generations, and implicates us all. In the book, the idea is first presented by the death of the clutters, although it appears several times throughout. We see the Clutters try to present themselves as the consummate American family and we watch them sweep their secrets under the rug. Even this is indicative of a degree of baseness but we may naturally and instinctively turn a blind eye to this fact. We are forced to believe, despite evidence to the contrary-- and Capote would have it no other way--that the Clutters are perfection incarnate. Capote forces us to cringe at their death because it is the death of probity, the death of innocence. Capote dares us not to cringe; he dares us to look depravity in the eye without blinking and he has absolute certainty that we cannot. He knows the reaction is a visceral one. But what about when we see the perversion in Perry’s childhood or Dick’s perception; what, then, do we do? What about when we see the perversion of a small town, whose citizens no longer trust each other; what, then, do we do? What about when we see the perversion of a justice system, with no capacity to discern the complexity of its subjects; what, then, do we do? What about when we see the perversion of capital punishment, in which we censure an action by committing it; what, then, do we do? Do we cringe, or do we wince? Or do we notice? Have we, the “innocent,” been so uncouthly perverted?
ReplyDelete--Jamal J.
In the beginning, the reader understood that the Clutters' demise was inevitable and soon approaching. Capote writes as though the Clutters' ignorance and innocence beckoned death. Capote utilizes dramatic irony to invoke a timed and controlled reaction from the reader. Every action of the Clutters seems to forebode their fatality or seemingly mock mortality. Capote dramatizes events in the Clutters' lives that appear to be conspicuous errors leading to their destruction. Capote makes sure that the death of the Clutter family is no suprise and to a degree, self-inflicted. The murders are not subject to questioning, and the intention to kill was given no appeal.
ReplyDeleteBut this is not true with the killing of Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. As the death of the Clutter family was common knowlegde, so was that of Dick and Perry. But Capote constructs their demise with a newfound sense of indignation and plea for morality. The death sentence of Dick and Perry receives numerous appeals and is thrown feeble concessions that constitute a farce. Capote demands pity and mercy for the murderers as though they had awaiting providence while the Clutters had no opportunity.
I think Capote uses antithesis when he describes the death penalty with religion. That is a subject that many people struggle with because most dont believe we as man should have the right to take another mans life, but are easily swayed in there opinion when they are put in these types of situations. A person could easily say "We as man dont have the right to take the life of our fellow man, this is a power that belongs to God and God alone, but my fellow man shall take the life of my beloved, his life shall be taken from him". Its like a contradiction between what it is that you acctually feel. I for one think it is "black and white" we as man dont have the devine right to take the life of our fellow man no matter what, even if somone killed a person i loved, no matter how much i would hate them, i would forgive them in the end and wish that they find inner peace. If i take someones life its a sin no matter how you slice it. Then i would explain myself to God and ask for forgiveness
ReplyDelete