After reading the entire book:
How could Capote have written such a perfect non-fiction story, with such a smooth narrative flow? Many contend that he didn’t – that when the details of the truth mired the telling of the story, Capote turned to invention. If that is the case, where do you suspect that happened? What makes you suspect that that particular part of the story is “fudged”? Does it make a difference to you, the reader?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think invention is prominent mostly in the first section of "The Last To See Them Alive." The narrative flow of this section is very nice. A little too nice. How could Capote have possibly know so much about the Clutter family? He seems to know everything right down to their daily habits and routines. That simply is not practical. Also, how could he have known every little thing Nancy was involved in and had to do that day? This effects me as a reader because it makes me question how Capote could possibly know all these things, and why? It's hard to believe he could know all that so it's hard to know what else in the book was "fudged." Of course this happens more in the rest of the book but I notice it mostly in the beginning when the Clutter family is being discussed. Feedback is highly welcome. Would love to discuss this further with someone else.
ReplyDeleteBrandy U.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the first section of the book seems to have the most embellishment on the lives of the Clutter family. However, Capote constantly stresses throughout the book that they were very well known in Holcomb, so perhaps he got some of the information about their daily lives from friends or neighbors, the rest being a product of his imagination. The fact that some parts of the story were invented doesn't really bother me because in my opinion, it helps with the flow of the story. Besides, if Capote hadn't put some of his own little details in there, then there would not really be a story at all. It would be a documentation of mundane facts about the grusome murder of an innocent and unsuspecting family.
ReplyDeleteThis is very true. Though in my opinion, he tried to add too much. Too many details about their life does stress the fact that they were just a normal family but it also get's tiresome to read. If he did know or manage to find all these details about their daily life, I don't think there was a need to include them all. Even if they are the truth, the sheer amount of details he adds about them, to me, subtracts from the story. And through out the story, he seems to present only facts, and this 'truth only' aspect also gets a bit tiring. My opinion may be a bit biased because I am a person of suspense and twists however. I respect other opinions but these are simply my own.
ReplyDeleteBrandy U.
Honestly, I think he turned the instances of weather to invention. One thing I noticed is that the weather seemed to change along with the mood. This includes the time when Dick and Perry were to be put to death, and the rain started falling as if to signal their arrival. The overall mood of that scene is very suspenful and somewhat melonchaly, and a device aurthor's tend to use is the weather. Rain usually means a type of cleansing and a turning point in the book where things begin anew. While this is an effective device used in fictional novels, I have a hard time believing that the rain really did come in time with the prisoners, and it just so happened to be the time where the story changed from suspense to more liberation. While that might make the story look complete, to me it made it look made up and fictional. Another instance of this is when the murderers arrived at the county jail and the beautiful fall ended in snow, a type of rain. Again, it doesn't make sense how throughout the story he uses the element of weather to fit the mood, but claims it to be non-fictional. In my honest opinion, either he made up the weather, or weather really does read human emotion.
ReplyDeleteMariela V.
This is exactly the type of discussion we like to see. You are responding to each other and either refuting or supporting the thinking of others in a respectful manner, using concrete examples from the novel. Fantastic!!!!
ReplyDeleteMrs. Kasper
Is not the purpose of a novel, fiction or non-fiction, to expose a basic truth that is relevant to our lives or our perception of the world in which we live? Capote intended us to read In Cold Blood not for the purpose of amassing knowledge about an unfortunate, brutal, but insignificant murder in Kansas, but for the purpose of learning something far more profound: our own endeavor is influenced by things far beyond our control, and that even in the simplest of circumstances, there is convolution that escapes our own human capacity to perceive, understand, or disentangle. So while the novel may have detailed some unlikely events, (though we are immersed in a world of serendipity, a world whose very existence some may call serendipitous) and though embellishments may have been made, musings intended to extricate fact from fiction are irrelevant. There can be no conflict between fiction and truth because fundamentally, fiction is truth.
ReplyDelete--Jamal J.
Jamal, define truth. And is it not arrogance to say that a murder is insignificant?
ReplyDeleteIn John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” In this passage, Jesus voices an idea that is particular to Christians, but a paradigm of thought about truth that can be applied to humanity in general. Truth is anything that lights our path or exposes our purpose, jointly as a human race or individually as human beings. Fact is therefore not synonymous with truth. We read newspaper articles and skim over tabloid pictures with scarcely any insight into the human condition gleaned. Fiction, just as nonfiction, in its purest form, ought to be a means of exposing truth.
ReplyDeleteNow, I used the word insignificant to express the idea that the mere knowledge of the event has no profound effect on our lives. We have all heard stories of grotesque, barbaric murders before. In fact, Capote could have used a myriad of cases to convey similar ideas; he implied as much by introducing us to several other criminals at the end of the book. What made him choose the Clutter murder? Perhaps it was entirely random. Perhaps the case was more open than others. Perhaps the town of Holcomb wanted to tell its story, to purge its feelings. Perhaps it was opportune timing. But ultimately, does it matter? Was the truth affected by the medium through which it was told? Maybe it was and maybe it was not. I am inclined to believe the latter.
--Jamal J.
I would have to agree with Brandy. In the first part "The Last to See Them Alive" Capote added way to much detail. He couldn't have possibly known that Nancy kept smelling smoke around the house or that she might have thought her father had picked back up the bad habit. I believe that all of the little details crammed into each sentence negatively impacted the novel whether he "fudged" them or not. The fact that Capote wrote so much about every single aspect of the Clutter's lives may have made the reader want to fall asleep or wonder when it is going to be over. I think that if Capote hadn't tried to beef up the story with so much details in the novel then I, or the reader, would have been able to follow the actual story line a bit better.
ReplyDeleteAbby G
I believe that even if Capote accumulates as much facts as he could, there were parts where the reader has a sense that it isn’t non-fiction. Even though the story had a quintessence smooth flow to it, one can't help but think that parts of the story was "fudged." The first section of the book had so many details about the Clutter's daily life that an outsider couldn’t have known. Also, the details of Perry and Dick's escape was so clear and distinct that Perry and Dick themselves shouldn’t have remember every single detail of the commute. To me, it didn't make a difference if the story was fabricated because without the many details Capote put in, this 'masterpiece' wouldn't be the way it is.
ReplyDeleteQuyen N.
I agree with Quyen on both aspects. Though I could see a bit of why the Clutters were described in such detail. They had friends and neighbors that knew them so well. For example, Nancy had a best friend who she told everything to; the author could have asked around and found out a lot about the Clutter’s daily lives, having to create a only a few details of his own. Even more than the Clutters, how did they know detail of Dick and Perry’s life after the murder? They had no close friends during that time that the author could ask. At points, it was only Dick and Perry who were together and no witnesses to question. How did the author know exactly what they were thinking at every moment of their lives? Not even an intense interrogation by the detectives would give Capote that much detail into their lives during their escape. For example, when Perry is in the restroom and is having knee pains, how did Capote know what Perry was thinking? He must have had to fabricate his thoughts in order to give him a personality. Though I agree with Quyen, I actually liked the fact that Capote added fiction into the story. Without it, there would only be facts on paper.
ReplyDeleteJasmine N.
Capote's characterization of the Clutters had to have been fiction. Unlike the rest of the townespeople in the book, Capote was unable to interview the Clutter family - they were dead. In the book he described them as nothing other than perfect. In excess Capote tries to make the readers truly believe that the Clutter family is perfect. He describes Mr. Clutter as a handsome man who was highly regarded by all. "Though he wore rimmed glasses and was about average height, standing just under five feet ten, Mr. Clutter cut a man's-man figure." "He was, however, the community's most widely known citizen, prominent both there and in Garden City..." (p. 6) His wife is described as "timid, pious, delicate", completely defenseless to face a murderer. Nancy, the Clutter's daughter who was living with them at the time of the murder, was described as a picture perfect daughter and their son as a respectable young man. Capote made the Clutters completely innocent in order for the reader to sympathize with four strangers' deaths. To achieve his goal Capote had to fudge the facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mariela, but I also think that Capote used the weather to contrast the town's mood. The unnaturally long Indian summer contrasts the town's, overall, dark and supsicious mood with the beautiful weather, making them seem that much more dark. And as for how he could've known all he knew about Nancy Clutter, doesn't the book say she left a diary spanning the years from 12 to 16? And, as Nina says, he very well could have asked neighbors, friends, or relatives. Capote also could've read the police reports on the crimes. Where, and if, Capote does embellish, which, I really don't think he did, he probably did what every single one of us does; change teeny-tiny details to make the story more interesting. And if anyone says they don't lie, you just did.
ReplyDeleteConnor S.
As I read this book that question never occurred to me - whether this was all true or not - because I was enjoying reading the book as a story, not an informative. But now that they question is asked I do go back and see a lot of things that make me think that the book isn’t entirely non-fiction. There are two places in particular that I want to point out. One place is in Part 4, Chapter 16 when you know what the inmates are saying to each other. Since they are on Death Row I’m assuming most of them are dead now, so they couldn’t tell us what happened. The second instance is in Part 3, Chapter 10 when we learn about Dewey’s dream. Even if the author had an interview with Dewey, it’s still suspicious how true it actually is. Usually we only remember parts of dreams, and not in that much detail. There are many other places where the details in this book seem a little “fudged”, but in general it didn’t make reading this book less enjoyable.
ReplyDelete~Kendall R.
I have to agree with Kyle on this. It seems that Capote knew his facts though they may have been very general when he learned about the Clutter family. Capote had to generate his own detail in accordance to what he knew and learned about the family. It would not have been as moving had we not known what may have been the 'personal lives of the Clutter family', so in order for Capote to have that movement in his narrative, he added what seemed most believable. It does actually bother me that he did this but not because he assumed how the family's personality was but because in order for the readers to sympathize the way we did, Capote knew that he had to make the family ideal. For we would not have reacted as sympathetically had they not been so perfect and adored. That says something about us.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is plausible that Capote did indeed “bend” the truth at certain points in his novel, I believe that Capote’s book was true to its entirety: a non-fiction story. To me, I feel that his flowing narrative was a result of remarkable transitions from section to section and not erroneous fibs conjured to hold the story together. Throughout the story, I was impressed by how easily one passage flowed into the next, often times connected by a detail seemingly trivial but effective. When mentioning his suspicions about the unknown murderers, Arthur Clutter declared, “When this [case] is cleared up, I’ll wager whoever did it was someone within ten miles of where we now stand” (Capote 84). Afterwards, Capote began the following chapter with the sentence, “Approximately four hundred miles east of where Arthur Clutter then stood, two young men were sharing a booth in the Eagle Buffet, A Kansas City diner” (Capote 84). In a single, brief moment, Capote implies the irony in Arthur Clutter’s statement, invalidating it by mentioning the proximity of the “two young men” to Mr. Clutter. Additionally, the link joining the two stated distances provided a fluent switch from Holcomb back to Smith and Hickock.
ReplyDelete-Hannah C.
When I first started reading this book I was curious at how he got so detailed of information. I saw how he did by the many quotes Capote used throughout the book. There were quotes of people who knew the Clutter family and lines of people who witnessed Dick and Perry on the road. This is what made me think it was completely non-fiction. Then when I started to read every little thought going through Nancy Clutter's head, I started to question how Capote knew this. This couldn't be non-fiction. It would be impossible for anyone to know what she was thinking or exactly what happened before she went to bed. I think Capote started to turn to "invention" when he would share with us the thoughts of the people. No one knows what people are thinking. But, either way, "In Cold Blood" was a great book and Capote did a great job in my opinion. The book would be dull without the "fudged" details. I am glad he invented a little bit. Doesn't change my perspective on the book.
ReplyDeleteLauren S.
I believe that the section “The Last to See Them Alive” is the section containing the most invention of Capote. But I don’t believe it is as “fudged” as most people think it is. The Clutter’s were well known in the community and thus, did not have much privacy [as Nina said]; this book was also written in the time period of the crime, search, and convection of the Clutter case. Capote could not have chosen a better time to write it because he was in the middle of an information hub. He could have also done what numerous of biographers of criminals do today, which is basically go through every single piece of state owned documents of the case/person. Once the Dick and Perry were caught there was no need for banning the public from the information. That gave Capote plenty of time to do some research. The author obviously added on to the truth a little bit in the parts where the Clutter’s personal thoughts were involved and conversation. But I had no problem with it once so ever. This is a book NOT an encyclopedia. Without this little bit of imagination this book would have been awful and not connected at all. Thank goodness for invention.
ReplyDeleteBethany S.
A character that I believe is mostly fiction, created more for the purpose of bringing the story along, was Alvin Dewey. While the police were involved in the case, it seems unlikely that a single officer was solely involved and obsessed with this one case of murder to the point where he constantly loses sleep over the event for much of the storyline.
ReplyDeleteOne possible theory is that Alvin Dewey was Truman Capote's interpretation of himself as he gathered details of the murders. As both Dewey and Capote became so wrapped up in the case that their home lives suffered and they even appear to begin losing their sanity as the story progresses.
While most of the story is truth, I feel that Capote was wise in "fudging" certain elements. A story, even one meant to convey a true event, is made for entertainment. Being the great author that he was, I feel Capote was well aware of when he could add a certain character or event to progress his literature and better captivate a reader.
-JR Bryant
I agree with Quyen on her aspects. There was definitely a lot of detail. So much detail that I dozed off while reading and had a hard time concentrating on it. Whether or not the book was fiction or non-fiction never occurred to me. I understand how Capote could’ve have known the details in the Clutter family. They were a popular family in the town and Nancy also had a best friend to whom she told everything too. The little details, that Jasmine stated about the Clutter family does make it seem like he could’ve “fudged” it a bit.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, with Perry and Dick’s part of the story. It’s hard to comprehend how he knew so much about them. The interviews and court cases might’ve helped him a bit. But how could he have known how they were feeling and the simple little things they did.
One thought that I kept thinking as I read the book was that Capote must’ve either been there as the crime happened. Or was one of the reporters or journalist that came to investigate.
It is said that Capote came to Kansas with a childhood friend and Harper Lee and interviewed many of the local residents and the investigators and took thousands of pages of notes. This could explain how he could’ve written the book with such detail and flow.
-Diana T.
I think that some of the invention occurred when he gave such intimate details and happenings in the life of the Clutters before there murders, it seems too "right" to be a fact, in the case of dialogues between people. Also later on in the novel when Dick and Perry are in Miami for Christmas, when he knew that Dicks childhood friend brought back seashells and gloated to Dick about it. The fact that he used some imagination doesn't bother me in the slightest, i agree with Nina on this if he didn't "invent" a little this whole novel would be botched and not as entertaining, and it would be a very bland re documentation of a interesting murder in 1959 and the events that followed it
ReplyDeleteI honestly have no clue. The story was okay. It didnt intrigue me or captivate me because he seemed to know these characters all too well. So i would have to say most of this stiry seemed "fony" because of the detail characterization of these characters.
ReplyDeleteCapote uses the clutters as a crutch in "the last to see them alive". He did not know the clutters or the killers personally. He could've asked their friends or neighbors but in the end he pulled some of the story out of thin air. Based on the facts of this story how can we be sure what is fiction and what is non-fiction? We as the readers know that as a result of endless research this gruesome murder was made into a harsh and realistic story. Scott Mitchell has a point, the clutters and their murderers were dead long before Capote got the chance to ask questions. the dialogue between the clutters and their friends may not be true but it adds character to the story. Same as dialogues between Perry and Dick. Without these dialogues the story would be dull and lifeless.
ReplyDeleteAshley Tullos
4th period