I think Capote left the reader in the dark about the details of the murders until the story was nearing its end because he was still weaving in the details of Dick and Perry's lives. To toss in exactly how brutally the Clutters were murdered would have thrown off the whole effect he was trying to make with the reader's sympathy towards the characters. Knowing what they were capable of, would we have ever thought that maybe Perry didn't have as much to do with the crime as was once believed? So, when they were caught, Capote unleashes his little twist with the unveiling of Perry's confession, leaving the reader suprised. Perhaps it was this shock value that he used to keep the book moving and interesting, making the reader want to see exactly how they could have been so wrong in the judgment of the two men.
The reason Capote doesn't indulge you with the details of the murder until the culprits were caught and confessed is that he wants to give you a better look at the men when you think they had equal hands. With this time he gets by holding out, he shows you who these men are before you find out that one killed the Clutter family. He softens readers up to Perry to turn the tables and say that he's the killer. In this way, he actually makes you realize how human someone who is insane, is. He shows you how human someone who cannot feel very remorseful for such a deed can be.
I feel that Capote waited till the end after Perry and Dick were caught to explain the murder in detail to create suspense. Capote had to find a way to create even more suspense because he had already portrayed what the outcome of the story was going to be in the first part of the book. He did this throughout the story so the reader could be wondering things like, who actually did the killing? Or what was the actual motive for committing this crime? By putting the events in this order, Capote created anticipation all the way to the end of the novel.
I belive that Capote waited untile Dick and Perry were caught to give the discriptive version of the murders because the placement vest fit the book's timeline. Capote couldn't say what was going to happen at the beginning of the book because the crime hadn't occurred yet. Nor could he disclose what happened while the police were trying to figure it out. Nobody knew exactly what happened execpt Dick adn Perry. It made most sense to put the detailed description at the end of the book when the criminals that committed the crime could explain.
The fact that Capote did not give us a very good description of the murder at first made me mad. If this book was about the murders it didn’t make since to me that we wouldn’t get a description of them! But, since they didn’t give us a very good description, we were able to imagine what we thought happened that night, November fourteenth. We were able to come up with our version of the crime. Then when Dick and Perry confessed to what actually happened, it really surprised me.
Because they hadn’t told me right away what happened it didn’t effect the way I thought of them. I was able to develop a personal relationship with them, feeling a lot of pity for Perry most of the time. It wouldn’t have been as suspenseful or surprising if they told us right away what happened.
Since the point I feel about this question has already been made several times over, I'd like to respond to someone else's statement instead. Academic535 said, "In this way, he actually makes you realize how human someone who is insane, is." I found this statement interesting because she talks about the killers and the Clutters having 'equal hands' and softening the reader up to the killers, only to come back and call them insane. Why would we call them insane? Because they did something that a 'normal human' would not? We are made to meet and sympathize with them and it isn't until the end that Capote explains the murders so for the good part of the book, we think Dick and Perry are just normal people but at the end, we learn just how horrible people can be. My point is, what Academic525 said is the exact reason Capote waited till the end to give the description. He wanted the readers to realize 'how human someone who is insane' can be.
He did so to create suspense so that the reader will be determined to know how it happened. He describes the scene afterwards, where everything was places perfectly and such. He also describes how each of the Clutters went to sleep the night before. The combination of the two things makes the reader curious to know how they went. I also thought it was interesting what Kendall said about how not knowing what happened that night allowed the reader to connect more easily with the murderers. I do find truth in that, and it makes sense that if we had known how brutally Dick and Perry murdered the family, we probably would've never sympathized as much as we did with them. By waiting until the end to show how the crime was commited, he not only created suspense, he allowed the readers to connect with the murders. Capote, as Brandy and Academic535 put it, showed 'how human someone who is insane' can be. He allowed us to form a relationship with the people in the book.
I think Capote did not describe how the murders happened until they were caught because Capote wants the reader to know how these men who murdered the Clutter family really were. Of course, if the readers have already known how brutal Perry and Dick were, then we would not feel sympathetic towards them and wouldn’t have a second thought that these two isn’t as bad as how the crime was. Also, as an author, Capote have to consider what the reader would like best, because the murder scene is the most anticipated part that the reader wants to read about. The book's synopsis tells the reader that the Clutter’s have been killed. Automatically, the reader’s interest is how they were killed. If Capote wrote the murder scene in the beginning or in the middle part of the book, the reader wouldn’t want to read the rest of the story because they have already read the most important part of the book.
I think to answer a question like this, the reader needs to be able to understand what Capote was trying to make the reader understand. Based upon how the book was formatted, I believe that he was, like many have said before me, giving time for the reader to relate to the character. However its important to know why he wrote it that way. After translating the foreword from Francois Villon's poem Ballade des pendus, which reads "Human brothers who live after us, Do not have your hearts hardened against us, For, If you take pity on us poor, God will sooner take mercy on you." Capote wants the reader to have a candid, impartial look at Dick and Perry, and if he would have went through the details of the murder right at the start he would lose the readers unbiased outlook. Capote met with these men, and obviously wanted to give them a fighting chance against the forgone conclusions made by society. For this reason I think this common quote that Mariela, Brandy, and Academic535 have made "how human someone who is insane can be." Is spot-on from a normal viewpoint, but I dont think Capote thinks these men are insane. A better summary would be "how human someone who is seen as insane can be." But all in all the idea is similar, Capote writes to make us see the humanity thats behind such heartless murders and not have our "hearts hardened" against them.
I think that Capote did not describe how the murders happened until Dick and Perry were caught and gave their confessions to give the reader more background information about the two. From the time span of the murder taking place and when Dick and Perry are caught, you learn a lot about the two guys. You get to find out who they really are and what they are capable of doing. Capote also leaves the reader wandering with different predictions of what may have happened by characterizing both Dick and Perry. By doing this, you may become more sympathetic towards the characters. That is exactly what happens to Perry throughout the book. For example, when Dick and Perry break into the Clutter family’s house, Perry is steadily comforting the family by putting pillows under their heads, tucking them into bed, etc. That is not usually something a killer would do. Capote makes Perry out to be the better one of two and most likely not to have any involvement with the murders. Shockingly, you find out that it was all twisted up and Perry is not as great as you think. -Braelyn B.
If Capote had detailed the scene earlier, I believe a reader would be less likely to sympathize with the real murderer, which was the seemingly saner of the two, Perry. He gave the reader a twist, because as many have pointed out, the realization that he killed all four members of the family was a shock.
In my opinion, to really understand what Capote was thinking, a reader would have to realize that while writing this story, he interviewed the two murderers during their time on death row. He eventually came to be very close to Perry as an actual human being, even stating that at the time he was finally put to death, Truman Capote felt closer to him than any other person. To write about how the deaths happened early in the book may have lead him to believe that readers wouldn't feel enough sympathy for the actual man. In allowing the readers to feel a closeness with the character, he may have been trying to do a good deed towards the man that actually did become his friend.
I believe that Capote waited to tell us how the murder happened for two main reasons. The first reason was to create suspense and keep us hooked to the story. I would ruin the book if he had told us in the beginning because that is one of the main mysteries of the case seeing as how we already know the outcome of the trial and the murder. The suspense he creates by delaying the murder details gives us a reason to keep reading and to keep us entertained. The second reason he waits is because he wants us to sympathize with Perry. During the whole book he tells us how Perry was poor and abused and didn't have a good childhood and made us feel for him. However, if he would have told us Perry killed all four victims, he would have automatically become the hated character but by waiting, Capote was able to show how Perry, an unfortunate but easily likable guy, was just as normal as anyone else.
How i understood it was that Capote wanted, on one hand to keep the audience curious, keeping the question of how the murder was committed in their heads. On the other hand it was also to give the reader time to understand what was going on in the killers' head in the moments that they we're planning the crime, committing it, and after when they were on the run. Waiting until the confession also gave time to understand the characters and their relationship and letting the reader see how both were very likable but Perry was the more sensitive person, in turn making the reader sympathize for Perry more than Dick. Which in the end made the shock of Perry murdering the four members of the clutter family more shocking than it would've been.
I want to think that Capote did not indulge us in the details of the murders because he was trying to get the point across that not all killers are insane, Dick and Perry were both able to be logical and rationalize, they did have a since of right and wrong. Any human has the capability to kill its just a test of will and how far you're willing to go with it. He wanted the reader to think on how much does it take for a person to be insane and how much it takes for other people to sugest that about someone.
By not revealing how or by who the murders happened Capote is able to may you think that dick is the more agressive than perry and that dick was the likely murderer. Capote makes the reader feel sympathy towards perry and tries to show that he has more value for human life. So by waiting until the conffesions Capote creates a suspense, making the reader wonder what happened on that fatal night. Capote uses his genius and makes us falsely believe that dick was the one who unleashed the brutality against the Clutter not perry. So he shocks us all when revealing that perry was indeed the killer and dick is somewhat of a coward. By not stating who was the murderer Capote creates a true page turner
Capote didn't give the details on how the murder happened until Perry and Dick gave their confessions because then if it was told in the criminals' point of view you could figure out the motive the criminals had for the murder. Also if the details of the murder were given in the beginning of the book then there wouldn't be much of a suspense factor throughout the rest of the book because most of the important details would already be known. -Ashley Mambru-
I think that Capote left out details because he wanted to build suspense, as well as interest. Through at least the first two thirds of the book, readers are left wondering 'What happened? What happened?' We are simply given unusual clues found at the crime scene, such as Mr. Clutter's body on a mattress box. We know who did this crime, but for a long time it is not explained how. This encourages us to continue reading, out of a thirst for more information. I also felt that his omission of the details seems to be a comment on how fleeting life is. One evening, the Clutter family is watching TV and relaxing, enjoying life as it is despite any recent troubles, the next morning, the entire family is dead. Gone. Four lives, taken away just like that. By skimping on the details of their murder, it is made more brief, reminding the readers of their own morality, and how one moment a person is there, the next they are not.
Capote did not describe how the murder happened until Dick and Perry confessed because it allowed the story of it to seem more real. This is so because it is coming from their perspective. How they perceived what had happened. He also accomplished building suspense through not telling what happened earlier. He gave only minute details and random clues to what had happened. The lack of details compels the reader to continue on reading to gain more information and understanding of what happened.
I completely agree with Nina. Capote wanted us to "get to know" and sympathize with Dick and Perry, and revealing the true brutal nature of their crime would only serve to ruin the effect he was trying to create. He wanted us to be shocked when we found out it was actually Perry, not Dick, who killed the Clutters. Withholding the description of the Clutter's death also served to move along the story. Capote left vauge little hints throughout the book, inducing our curious nature to want to find the whole truth and receive closure.
I think Capote was challenging his readers when he didn't tell us how Dick and Perry murdered the Clutter's. Capote had given us a substantial amount of detail to create strong opinions of the characters already, and I think he wanted us to use those opinions to create the murder scene in our heads. Capote forced us into doing this because he was trying to strengthen our personal relationship with theh criminals...perhaps to make it harder for us to face the truth when the real scenario was revealed when the criminals confessed, or to alter our opinions of the death penalty. Capote challenged his readers to not only use the details he provided, but to create their own, mentally.
I agree with Abby G, I believe Capote waited towards the end of the novel after Dick and Perry were caught to explain the detail of the murder to create suspense. I also believe Capote wanted the readers to actually know the criminals so the readers can sympathize for them. After learning who the criminals actually were created a link to the reader from the criminals in the novel. Without the sympathy for the criminals, the novel would seem plain and like a boring murder novel. The suspense was necessary as well because if the material was missing most readers would of lost interest in the novel sense the readers would have known the whole murder details and concept of the novel in the beginning. With both feelings being created by Capote, he also created anticipation from the beginning to the end of the novel, keeping the readers guessing and wanting to know more.
I agree that the reason for the witheld details of the murder were for the reader to both form an unbiased acquiantance with the murderers and to create suspense. But I also believe the reason was to allow the reader to empathize with the bewilderment and shock of the townspeople and detectives. In the very beginning Capote persuades the reader to love the Clutters as the Kansans had. Then, like the detectives and townspeople, the reader is afflicted by knowing the result of that infamous night, but not how it happened or why(Creating suspense along with empathy). Concequently, the reader can relate to the townspeople's confusion and remorse. Side by side the reader is able to both live the life of two criminals and solve the mystery in Holcomb. Because of this set up, the reader is able to live through the mystery in a suspenseful and realistic way.
I think the authour held out until the end of the book to describe exactly how the clutter famly was murdered to let the reader get to know Dick and Perry and be able to sympathize with them. If you were to know who killed the family and how it was brutally done, you would write these two men off as horrible and sick and twisted men. But instead, you meet these men casually and learn all about their lives. Capote teaches you that Dick and Perry are like you and me. They are men who have pasts and feelings. It would be hard for a reader to read get to know Dick and Perry with out the thoughts of how they are just bad people in the back of the reader's head the entire book. Capote withdraws from telling the details of the murder until the end of the book to keep the reader in suspense and to learn that Dick and Perry are human beings and to sympathize with these two "human beings".
I agree that he author held out so the reader could meet the two killers as regular human beings instead of monsters. It made it that much more shocking when the reader meets the characters as sensitive and compassionate (the main one being Perry), but then the facts are slammed infront of them on how cold and cruel the killers are capable of being. I found myself trying to make excuses for Perry. Like maybe his past contributed to him acting in such a cruel way.
I also believe that he held off in the actual discription of the murder because he wanted the suspense to built, and it sort of forced the reader to take every little detail from each persons statements, and put it all in, piece by piece and make their own account of what happened. It's sort of makes you feel like a detective while reading this book when you observe the detail are are trying to make a case and find evidence. I believe this is the main reason why Capote held out, because if you can make the reader relate and feel a part of the book, then you've done your job as an author.
I think that Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until Perry and Dick were caught so that the readers would have a chance to get to know the characters and to leave the readers in suspense. By not giving all the details Capote gave the readers a chance to learn about the killers and their personal lives. He gave the reader a chance to sympathize with the killers. He also kept the readers interested and in suspense by not revealing all the details until the killers were caught. I personally like to know all of the facts and by not revealing the details, Capote kept me interested until the very end.
Capote's book is kept interesting by saving the details of the murders until the end. During the beginning and middle of the book you find yourself liking Perry because he is displayed in large contrast to Dick. If you had known that Perry was the murder from the beginning and how gruesome he had been you would have built a natural dislike for him, if that was done Perry would be a character that was too difficult for most readers to build a relationship with; and without that relationship the book would have been much too slow to be an enjoyable read.
I think Capote did not describe how the murders happened until Dick and Perry were caught because, he wanted you to build a realtionship with them each individually. As we read the book we learn characteristics of each individual, which makes us understand them on a deeper level. We start to learn more about their past and how they were raised. Even though as readers we know they killed four innocent people, we still start to feel sympathy for them, and begin to like them more. Without this relationship we wouldn't care about Dick and Perry, we would only care about the fact that they were murderers, and assume they were heartless. When we find out the details of the murders, we sympathize with Dick and Perry, and know they aren't completely heartless. That is why I think Capote didn't describe the murder till they confessed.
I think that Capote didn't reveal the events of that night until the very end obviously to create suspense. Throughout the whole book you know most of the pieces to the puzzle, Where the murder happened, who did it. What the reader doesn't know is the motive and how its done. This story is not a classic "whodunnit". Also Capote wanted you to get a feel for the locations and the characters, such as providing a detailed past for both Dick and Perry so you can get to know them as people instead of cold blooded murderers . He doesn't reveal it all up front however. He gives you time to learn and uncover each little clue to their pasts by reading more.
By choosing to refrain from revealing the actual sequence of events that occurred during the early morning hours of November 15th, 1959, Capote keeps the reader continually guessing at various possibilities, instilling suspense as well as an ongoing desire to know the details of how the murder was executed. In this sense, Capote is essentially making the reader an “investigator” of the crime. As the story progresses, Capote consistently drops the reader various hints on the “how” and the “why” behind the murder through the perspectives of both the killers and the detectives. For example, when Perry first brings up the name Floyd Wells, the reader is alerted that Wells is capable connecting the Clutter murder to Dick and Perry (Capote 87). However, the reader doesn’t know who Wells is or more importantly how Wells could make the connection that nobody else could. This information leaves the reader intrigued, thus maintaining interest in the plot surrounding the murder. Additionally, I felt that Capote purposely left a “gap” in the narration when the murders occurred to allow the reader to sympathize with the people of Holcomb and beyond instead of merely writing the murders off as a “psychological accident” as it was later called (Capote 239). Had the account of the murders been described earlier, the reader would have found it difficult to understand the sheer fear and mistrust felt by the denizens of Finney County after November 15th. Knowing just as little about the crime as the rest of the residents, the reader holds the same convictions about the true nature of the killers as does the townspeople: labeling them as cold, ruthless, violent, and brutal. Only through this understanding can the reader experience the fear effusing from the Clutter deaths. -Hannah C.
I believe Capote waited until the end of the book to reveal how the murders were described because he wanted to save a plot twist. Throughout the book, I was led to believe that Dick was the more disturbed of the two, that he was the most unremorseful and violent of the two. That caused my characterization of Dick to be an unstable maniac. However, at the end of the book I read that Dick, in fact, did not kill any of the Clutters; Perry was the murderer, and Dick was simply hanging with the wrong crowd. This drastically changed my view of Dick. I know saw him as simply a man astray, who unfortunately started something that ultimately destroyed him.
I believe that Capote left the descriptions of the murder for last to convey suspense in the reader, and to keep them reading. With the thoughts from Perry's guilt and the discoveries from the investigators, suspense is built throughout the novel. And Capote drags on the details little by little, til all exposed during the confessions at the end, to leave the reader wanting more and to keep the suspense from leaving the reader's mind.
I think that Capote didn’t describe how the murders occurred at the beginning for two reasons. First he didn’t want the readers to make up their mind about the criminals without knowing the hardships in their pasts, and it further connects the readers to the criminals because Dick and Perry describe how the murders happened, versus it just being a scene played out in the story. And, second, because that is the only detail left to build suspense on, for everyone knows the outcome to the story. We all knew the Clutters would be murdered and the criminals would be caught. So, that is the only thing to really keep us interested, which is why he waited until the end to give that final detail. -Tori J.
I think Capote waited until the two were caught to build suspense throughout the novel. If Capote had told you in the beginning the readers would be uninterested by the middle of the story because they would already be aware of what happend. He wants to keep his readers hanging on to every written word and by waiting until the end thats exactly what he is able to do. In the beginning he gave us minor details so we could make our own inferences about the ending.
I agree with Tori that if Capote gave away all of the details of the crime right when it happens, then he loses what suspense he has left to build the story off of because he already told us at the beginning of the book that the criminals were going to kill the family and then die for their crimes. Also, when the investigators come to survey the scene, they do not immediately know how it happened, they can only find that out through examination of the evidence and interrogating the criminals. Though it is helpful to not know all the details so you can feel for the criminals. If Capote did give away every detail of the murders , we would not be able to get past the heinous crime they have committed to realize the human part of them.
I believe the way he structured the story was both in a literal sense and a physcological game with the readers mind. In the literal way the crimes had not been comitted yet, so the police could not just figure out what was done, that would leave no suspense to figure ou what happened and the leader could grow bored. The physcological game is implemented throughought the entire story. He builds up a general dislike for Dick, making it seem that he was the more insane and ruthless of the two, when it was none other then Perry who had done the murdering of the entire family.
I think Capote didn't tell the reader all the details of the killings just to create suspense, and to keep the reader interested in the book. Maybe he wanted you to try and guess who died first, who of the two shot the family, and so on. He also, probably wanted the reader to know a bit about Dick and Perry's past, so that one could maybe find out why Dick and Perry would kill the Clutter's like they did.
The reason Capote didn't describe how the murders happened was because he wanted to have people still be able to connect with the killers. If he had told people in the beginning who they where, the readers would not want to hear Dick and Perry's side of the story. They would automatically write them off as bad people and not care for what they had to say in the rest of the novel.
Another reason Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until the end was to keep it suspenseful. When the reader reaches the part when Dick and Perry do confess it's a shock. Although the reader figured that they did it the whole time, they didn't realize the more seemingly sane and likable of the two had killed the whole family.
I think that Capote did not give murder details until the end in order to make you understand both sides of the story. I think that the first section is quite suspenseful it leads you right up to the murder but it gives very few details about the crime therefore the reader is in a confused anxious state. It’s like the tunnel before the gigantic drop on a roller coaster, it’s still scary as anything but you know there is something more than this and it has got to be worse. Then in the second section Capote makes you love the murderers, basically makes you live with them for a while. You come to accept them and understand them. Then the third section, the search for the answer. Now you feel suspense because you don’t want them to catch Perry and Dick but then you are impatient for the killers to be caught because you feel awful for the Clutters. If you didn’t read the second section you wouldn’t feel that suspense about the cops catching the killers. This is why the author chose to reveal the details in the third section and not the first. He wanted you to have a mixture of feelings that way you could understand the story from both the criminal’s side and the victim’s side. Bethany S.
The Clutter’s demise was a horrific one, and one not fully understood by those who don’t know Dick and Perry as the reader does. The reaction Capote is trying to invoke would be completely lost if the reader did not know the two men better than they know themselves. The feeling of shock that a human being could mercilessly slay four others and remain unremorseful would not have been achieved if Dick and Perry were not given a ‘fair chance’ to prove their ‘sanity’.
I believe that Capote waited till the end of the book so that he could create the suspense feeling the reader had from start to finish. I also believe that he did it so the reader could actually understand where Dick and Perry came from. If Capote was to reveal that they did commit the murders at the very begining then the reader wouldnt feel that sense of sympathy toward either Dick or Perry. The reader would also not be able to get that sudden gasp of when something catches them off gaurd; they would not have been able to get the "shock value."
I believed that Capote did this because it not only created suspense, but it also went well with the storyline. If had told us about it in the beginning, it would've been too soon. But that was also when the murder had happen which then created suspense for the readers. But then there was the chaos of the police, townspeople, and investigators as well. He continued on with story, making us wonder what really happened during that night. He gave out little hints of what could've happened, since it was only those two who really knew what happened that night. But at the same time letting us know and understand more about Perry and Dick. Instead of just thinking that they are murderers. By having it near the end, the author can finally let the readers read what have been wanting to know throughout the book.
I think he did it to create a suspence filled first 3 sections so that the reader will be determined to know how the murders happend. when capote describes the murder after such suspence, where everything coninsided perfectly . He also described how each of the Clutters went to sleep the night before. The combination of the two sections makes the reader curious to know how they went. By waiting until the end to tell how the crime was commited, he not only created suspense, he allowed the readers to connect with the murders.
I am by no means a vegetarian, but I cannot eat an animal that I have killed or whose death I have witnessed. There is something far too personal about it: the act seems to me to sensationalize mortality. Any other meat, though, is fair game. I recognize the same phenomena in this book. Our reaction is far more quiescent when we are spared the lurid details and character complexity because without them the story has taken on very few anthropomorphic qualities. Our minds naturally numb themselves to ghastly tales of murder, treating them as statistic rather than experience. But when we are submerged in the reality of it, our hearts overtake our minds and we will accept it or be drowned. Capote, by withholding details, forces us to kill our food and it eat too. The reaction and the experience are intensified by omission and inundation and in the midst of such obfuscation, we are unable to come to a categorical, or even coherent, understanding of the characters involved. Somehow, reality manages to prevail over simplicity.
I believe that Capote intentionally made us "live" with the Clutters for the entire first section of the book. He wanted us to learn their life so we would obviously feel more sympathetic when we read that they die. He left the real story to the almost end so we can first inject suspence into our brains because we knew they were going to die already we just never knew when, second play along with the books detectives to learn just what they know, and third because starting a book with an immediate murder would be unrelatable and depressing. I wouldn't want to read further. Therefore at the time of the confessions was the perfect time to break everything down to an understandable level.
If Capote blatantly described how all of the murders occurred from the beginning, then the whole mystery behind 'who was the true killer' never would have even happened. With the details thrown out into the open, a significant chunk of the suspense in the book would be for naught.
Plus, he delayed till the end so we could truly attach ourselves to how Dick and Perry were, and how each of their upbringings affected them individually. If he didn't, then readers would judge how they feel for the two based off the gruesome story of how the four were murdered early in the book.
I believe the reason capote did not describe the murders of the clutter family in till Dick and Perry gave their confessions, because how the murders were committed were per say the climax of the story. The fact that as a reader you were denied the information on the murders kept you reading, it built up suspense. This gave the reader more time to humanize and sympathize with Dick and Perry. If you were told in the beginning about the details of the murder would make sympathizing with them that much harder. In conclusion, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Capote holds important details about the Clutter murders back until after you've gotten to know the culprits for two reasons, in my opinion. First, to build suspense and a little air of mystery about who the actual murderers were. For the first section of the book, I was almost certain there was going to be a significant plot twist that revealed that Perry and Dick actually had nothing to do with the murders. Second, so that the reader can sympathize with them on a certain level and evaluate their crime and motives with a more impartial eye. By the end of the novel, the Clutter's were not the only "victims" in the situation. Perry stood out as a victim of his own upbringing, and a product of a radically violent and traumatizing childhood. -Angela Boyrie
I feel that Capote didn't reveal the gruesome details of the murders until the end for several reasons. One being that Capote wanted the reader to realize how human these killers really were and to get close to Perry and Dick as human beings. If Capote had revealed the details of the murders in the beginning then the reader would of had a hard time feeling compassionate for Perry and Dick. Another reason that Capote doesn't just bare the specific aspects of the murders is because he wanted to create a sense of suspense within the book. Dalton K.
By delaying the descriptions of the murders until Perry and Dick were caught, Capote kept the readers curious. We as the readers wanted to know what exactly happened to the Clutters that were introduced as a well respected family. We were fed small hints progressively throughout the chapters of how Perry and Dick commited the crime. Capote hooked us in the beginning by describing the murder weapons, so by giving us that information we want to know how it will be used. Later when the Clutter's were found dead inside their home, Capote describes the scene which illustrates a little more of the whole story. This really keeps us on the edge of our seat because we anticipate when we will know the entirety of it. Prolonging the description of the crime was a great tactic in keeping us interested in the story.
I think that Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until Dick and Perry were caught and gave their confessions because he wanted to build suspense and keep the reader interested in what he was writing.
Besides the most obvious answer, which is to keep the reader interested and curios, Capote withheld the details as to what happened that ill-fated night when the Clutters met their end mainly because he wanted to reveal who these killers were. He wanted to tell their story, to show that they were ordinary human beings instead of ruthless killing machines. To me, it seemed like Capote wanted you to get to know these two men for who they were, where they came from, and what all they had been through. It appeared as he wanted you to see them for who they are before you truly find out the brutality of their crime. By doing this Capote illustrates these men's lives in a way that you almost feel sympathy towards them and their predicament, but upon finding out how they relentlessly murdered the Clutters for a total of forty-five dollars surprises and reminds the reader of their vindictive crime.
I think that Capote waited until the end to reveal the details of the Clutters' deaths to drag out the suspense. We already knew that they were going to die, but by leaving out how they died, he gave us a reason to read on.
The author also may have been trying to help us to connect with the murderers. Like Rhuvana said, people may be more sympathetic to the murderer if they don't know how brutal the murderer killed the Clutters. That didn't really happen with me, though. Just the fact that the pair of them killed four innocent people pretty much put me off of them. I felt the same about them before we found how they had killed the Clutters and after.
I think Capote wanted to keep his readers on there toes, you know, keep them guessing. That way when it finnaly came down to it, his readers would be surprised of what acctually happened or proud that they were correct all alone.
in my oppionin i believe that capote did not tell the story untill after the killers were done is just baised on the fact of good wrighting. even tho i think capote is a dull wrighter his orginazation of details is artistic. he wanted to keep the suspence alive untill the very end and that is what makes it all the more Intrigueing
He didn't explain the murder scene because it would've killed the suspense. He waited for dick and perry to get caught and confess. In doing this he wanted the reader to get caught up in the book and keep guessing. By the 2nd half of the book you know Dick and Perry committed the murder's you just don't know how they did it. By not telling us, Capote kept us, the readers, interested in the book.
I think capote didn't tell how the murder happened because he wanted to add suspence and so the readers got the full experience from the killers own lips. I think he also wanted us to better understand their character before he told their horrible deed so the reader wasn't predudice of the murders tell the very last Possible moment. This helps the reader form a sort of relationship and pity for the murders past and hardships they have and will endore.
I think that Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until the end because he wanted to add suspense and keep the reader interested. Also, hearing how the murder was planned up to the point were the victims were killed from Dick and Perry's own lips made the reader gain a perspective on their point of view. Before reading about how the murder took place Capote wrote a lot about Dick and Perry's personal lives and by including this in the book the reader views both Dick and Perry to be “normal humans”. However, towards the end of the book they are viewed as insane because of their brutalness and for committing a 'pointless crime'. In my opinion I believe Capote wanted to humanize the murders as much as possible so that the reader could connect with them enough to sympathize them.
Sands Casino | Resort & Resort Spa in Las Vegas With over 1,000 of your favorite slot machines, including classic Egyptian symbols and classic jackpot 메리트 카지노 slots, this Vegas Strip resort หารายได้เสริม offers a true septcasino locals
I think Capote left the reader in the dark about the details of the murders until the story was nearing its end because he was still weaving in the details of Dick and Perry's lives. To toss in exactly how brutally the Clutters were murdered would have thrown off the whole effect he was trying to make with the reader's sympathy towards the characters. Knowing what they were capable of, would we have ever thought that maybe Perry didn't have as much to do with the crime as was once believed? So, when they were caught, Capote unleashes his little twist with the unveiling of Perry's confession, leaving the reader suprised. Perhaps it was this shock value that he used to keep the book moving and interesting, making the reader want to see exactly how they could have been so wrong in the judgment of the two men.
ReplyDeleteNina G.
The reason Capote doesn't indulge you with the details of the murder until the culprits were caught and confessed is that he wants to give you a better look at the men when you think they had equal hands. With this time he gets by holding out, he shows you who these men are before you find out that one killed the Clutter family. He softens readers up to Perry to turn the tables and say that he's the killer. In this way, he actually makes you realize how human someone who is insane, is. He shows you how human someone who cannot feel very remorseful for such a deed can be.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Capote waited till the end after Perry and Dick were caught to explain the murder in detail to create suspense. Capote had to find a way to create even more suspense because he had already portrayed what the outcome of the story was going to be in the first part of the book. He did this throughout the story so the reader could be wondering things like, who actually did the killing? Or what was the actual motive for committing this crime? By putting the events in this order, Capote created anticipation all the way to the end of the novel.
ReplyDeleteAbby G
I belive that Capote waited untile Dick and Perry were caught to give the discriptive version of the murders because the placement vest fit the book's timeline. Capote couldn't say what was going to happen at the beginning of the book because the crime hadn't occurred yet. Nor could he disclose what happened while the police were trying to figure it out. Nobody knew exactly what happened execpt Dick adn Perry. It made most sense to put the detailed description at the end of the book when the criminals that committed the crime could explain.
ReplyDeleteRachael Jensen
The fact that Capote did not give us a very good description of the murder at first made me mad. If this book was about the murders it didn’t make since to me that we wouldn’t get a description of them! But, since they didn’t give us a very good description, we were able to imagine what we thought happened that night, November fourteenth. We were able to come up with our version of the crime. Then when Dick and Perry confessed to what actually happened, it really surprised me.
ReplyDeleteBecause they hadn’t told me right away what happened it didn’t effect the way I thought of them. I was able to develop a personal relationship with them, feeling a lot of pity for Perry most of the time. It wouldn’t have been as suspenseful or surprising if they told us right away what happened.
This last post was by Kendall Rosato, sorry if I didn't verify that.
ReplyDeleteSince the point I feel about this question has already been made several times over, I'd like to respond to someone else's statement instead. Academic535 said, "In this way, he actually makes you realize how human someone who is insane, is." I found this statement interesting because she talks about the killers and the Clutters having 'equal hands' and softening the reader up to the killers, only to come back and call them insane. Why would we call them insane? Because they did something that a 'normal human' would not? We are made to meet and sympathize with them and it isn't until the end that Capote explains the murders so for the good part of the book, we think Dick and Perry are just normal people but at the end, we learn just how horrible people can be. My point is, what Academic525 said is the exact reason Capote waited till the end to give the description. He wanted the readers to realize 'how human someone who is insane' can be.
ReplyDeleteBrandy U.
He did so to create suspense so that the reader will be determined to know how it happened. He describes the scene afterwards, where everything was places perfectly and such. He also describes how each of the Clutters went to sleep the night before. The combination of the two things makes the reader curious to know how they went.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting what Kendall said about how not knowing what happened that night allowed the reader to connect more easily with the murderers. I do find truth in that, and it makes sense that if we had known how brutally Dick and Perry murdered the family, we probably would've never sympathized as much as we did with them.
By waiting until the end to show how the crime was commited, he not only created suspense, he allowed the readers to connect with the murders. Capote, as Brandy and Academic535 put it, showed 'how human someone who is insane' can be. He allowed us to form a relationship with the people in the book.
Mariela V.
I think Capote did not describe how the murders happened until they were caught because Capote wants the reader to know how these men who murdered the Clutter family really were. Of course, if the readers have already known how brutal Perry and Dick were, then we would not feel sympathetic towards them and wouldn’t have a second thought that these two isn’t as bad as how the crime was.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as an author, Capote have to consider what the reader would like best, because the murder scene is the most anticipated part that the reader wants to read about. The book's synopsis tells the reader that the Clutter’s have been killed. Automatically, the reader’s interest is how they were killed. If Capote wrote the murder scene in the beginning or in the middle part of the book, the reader wouldn’t want to read the rest of the story because they have already read the most important part of the book.
Quyen N.
Keep on posting!! I encourage you to respond to postings by other students as Brandy and Mariela have done.
ReplyDeleteI think to answer a question like this, the reader needs to be able to understand what Capote was trying to make the reader understand. Based upon how the book was formatted, I believe that he was, like many have said before me, giving time for the reader to relate to the character. However its important to know why he wrote it that way. After translating the foreword from Francois Villon's poem Ballade des pendus, which reads "Human brothers who live after us, Do not have your hearts hardened against us, For, If you take pity on us poor, God will sooner take mercy on you." Capote wants the reader to have a candid, impartial look at Dick and Perry, and if he would have went through the details of the murder right at the start he would lose the readers unbiased outlook. Capote met with these men, and obviously wanted to give them a fighting chance against the forgone conclusions made by society. For this reason I think this common quote that Mariela, Brandy, and Academic535 have made "how human someone who is insane can be." Is spot-on from a normal viewpoint, but I dont think Capote thinks these men are insane. A better summary would be "how human someone who is seen as insane can be." But all in all the idea is similar, Capote writes to make us see the humanity thats behind such heartless murders and not have our "hearts hardened" against them.
ReplyDeleteI think that Capote did not describe how the murders happened until Dick and Perry were caught and gave their confessions to give the reader more background information about the two. From the time span of the murder taking place and when Dick and Perry are caught, you learn a lot about the two guys. You get to find out who they really are and what they are capable of doing. Capote also leaves the reader wandering with different predictions of what may have happened by characterizing both Dick and Perry. By doing this, you may become more sympathetic towards the characters. That is exactly what happens to Perry throughout the book. For example, when Dick and Perry break into the Clutter family’s house, Perry is steadily comforting the family by putting pillows under their heads, tucking them into bed, etc. That is not usually something a killer would do. Capote makes Perry out to be the better one of two and most likely not to have any involvement with the murders. Shockingly, you find out that it was all twisted up and Perry is not as great as you think.
ReplyDelete-Braelyn B.
If Capote had detailed the scene earlier, I believe a reader would be less likely to sympathize with the real murderer, which was the seemingly saner of the two, Perry. He gave the reader a twist, because as many have pointed out, the realization that he killed all four members of the family was a shock.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, to really understand what Capote was thinking, a reader would have to realize that while writing this story, he interviewed the two murderers during their time on death row. He eventually came to be very close to Perry as an actual human being, even stating that at the time he was finally put to death, Truman Capote felt closer to him than any other person. To write about how the deaths happened early in the book may have lead him to believe that readers wouldn't feel enough sympathy for the actual man. In allowing the readers to feel a closeness with the character, he may have been trying to do a good deed towards the man that actually did become his friend.
-JR Bryant
I believe that Capote waited to tell us how the murder happened for two main reasons. The first reason was to create suspense and keep us hooked to the story. I would ruin the book if he had told us in the beginning because that is one of the main mysteries of the case seeing as how we already know the outcome of the trial and the murder. The suspense he creates by delaying the murder details gives us a reason to keep reading and to keep us entertained. The second reason he waits is because he wants us to sympathize with Perry. During the whole book he tells us how Perry was poor and abused and didn't have a good childhood and made us feel for him. However, if he would have told us Perry killed all four victims, he would have automatically become the hated character but by waiting, Capote was able to show how Perry, an unfortunate but easily likable guy, was just as normal as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteHow i understood it was that Capote wanted, on one hand to keep the audience curious, keeping the question of how the murder was committed in their heads. On the other hand it was also to give the reader time to understand what was going on in the killers' head in the moments that they we're planning the crime, committing it, and after when they were on the run. Waiting until the confession also gave time to understand the characters and their relationship and letting the reader see how both were very likable but Perry was the more sensitive person, in turn making the reader sympathize for Perry more than Dick. Which in the end made the shock of Perry murdering the four members of the clutter family more shocking than it would've been.
ReplyDelete-Rocio Espinoza
I want to think that Capote did not indulge us in the details of the murders because he was trying to get the point across that not all killers are insane, Dick and Perry were both able to be logical and rationalize, they did have a since of right and wrong. Any human has the capability to kill its just a test of will and how far you're willing to go with it. He wanted the reader to think on how much does it take for a person to be insane and how much it takes for other people to sugest that about someone.
ReplyDeleteBy not revealing how or by who the murders happened Capote is able to may you think that dick is the more agressive than perry and that dick was the likely murderer. Capote makes the reader feel sympathy towards perry and tries to show that he has more value for human life. So by waiting until the conffesions Capote creates a suspense, making the reader wonder what happened on that fatal night. Capote uses his genius and makes us falsely believe that dick was the one who unleashed the brutality against the Clutter not perry. So he shocks us all when revealing that perry was indeed the killer and dick is somewhat of a coward. By not stating who was the murderer Capote creates a true page turner
ReplyDeleteCapote didn't give the details on how the murder happened until Perry and Dick gave their confessions because then if it was told in the criminals' point of view you could figure out the motive the criminals had for the murder. Also if the details of the murder were given in the beginning of the book then there wouldn't be much of a suspense factor throughout the rest of the book because most of the important details would already be known.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Mambru-
I think that Capote left out details because he wanted to build suspense, as well as interest. Through at least the first two thirds of the book, readers are left wondering 'What happened? What happened?' We are simply given unusual clues found at the crime scene, such as Mr. Clutter's body on a mattress box. We know who did this crime, but for a long time it is not explained how. This encourages us to continue reading, out of a thirst for more information. I also felt that his omission of the details seems to be a comment on how fleeting life is. One evening, the Clutter family is watching TV and relaxing, enjoying life as it is despite any recent troubles, the next morning, the entire family is dead. Gone. Four lives, taken away just like that. By skimping on the details of their murder, it is made more brief, reminding the readers of their own morality, and how one moment a person is there, the next they are not.
ReplyDeleteEmilia K
Capote did not describe how the murder happened until Dick and Perry confessed because it allowed the story of it to seem more real. This is so because it is coming from their perspective. How they perceived what had happened. He also accomplished building suspense through not telling what happened earlier. He gave only minute details and random clues to what had happened. The lack of details compels the reader to continue on reading to gain more information and understanding of what happened.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Nina. Capote wanted us to "get to know" and sympathize with Dick and Perry, and revealing the true brutal nature of their crime would only serve to ruin the effect he was trying to create. He wanted us to be shocked when we found out it was actually Perry, not Dick, who killed the Clutters. Withholding the description of the Clutter's death also served to move along the story. Capote left vauge little hints throughout the book, inducing our curious nature to want to find the whole truth and receive closure.
ReplyDeleteThat last one was by Rachel Eckert., in case that wasn't noted.
ReplyDeleteI think Capote was challenging his readers when he didn't tell us how Dick and Perry murdered the Clutter's. Capote had given us a substantial amount of detail to create strong opinions of the characters already, and I think he wanted us to use those opinions to create the murder scene in our heads. Capote forced us into doing this because he was trying to strengthen our personal relationship with theh criminals...perhaps to make it harder for us to face the truth when the real scenario was revealed when the criminals confessed, or to alter our opinions of the death penalty. Capote challenged his readers to not only use the details he provided, but to create their own, mentally.
ReplyDeleteThat was by Emily Haban.
ReplyDeleteSorry!!
I agree with Abby G, I believe Capote waited towards the end of the novel after Dick and Perry were caught to explain the detail of the murder to create suspense. I also believe Capote wanted the readers to actually know the criminals so the readers can sympathize for them. After learning who the criminals actually were created a link to the reader from the criminals in the novel. Without the sympathy for the criminals, the novel would seem plain and like a boring murder novel. The suspense was necessary as well because if the material was missing most readers would of lost interest in the novel sense the readers would have known the whole murder details and concept of the novel in the beginning. With both feelings being created by Capote, he also created anticipation from the beginning to the end of the novel, keeping the readers guessing and wanting to know more.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the reason for the witheld details of the murder were for the reader to both form an unbiased acquiantance with the murderers and to create suspense. But I also believe the reason was to allow the reader to empathize with the bewilderment and shock of the townspeople and detectives. In the very beginning Capote persuades the reader to love the Clutters as the Kansans had. Then, like the detectives and townspeople, the reader is afflicted by knowing the result of that infamous night, but not how it happened or why(Creating suspense along with empathy). Concequently, the reader can relate to the townspeople's confusion and remorse. Side by side the reader is able to both live the life of two criminals and solve the mystery in Holcomb. Because of this set up, the reader is able to live through the mystery in a suspenseful and realistic way.
ReplyDeleteJaclyn M.
I think the authour held out until the end of the book to describe exactly how the clutter famly was murdered to let the reader get to know Dick and Perry and be able to sympathize with them. If you were to know who killed the family and how it was brutally done, you would write these two men off as horrible and sick and twisted men. But instead, you meet these men casually and learn all about their lives. Capote teaches you that Dick and Perry are like you and me. They are men who have pasts and feelings. It would be hard for a reader to read get to know Dick and Perry with out the thoughts of how they are just bad people in the back of the reader's head the entire book. Capote withdraws from telling the details of the murder until the end of the book to keep the reader in suspense and to learn that Dick and Perry are human beings and to sympathize with these two "human beings".
ReplyDeleteLauren S.
I agree that he author held out so the reader could meet the two killers as regular human beings instead of monsters. It made it that much more shocking when the reader meets the characters as sensitive and compassionate (the main one being Perry), but then the facts are slammed infront of them on how cold and cruel the killers are capable of being. I found myself trying to make excuses for Perry. Like maybe his past contributed to him acting in such a cruel way.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that he held off in the actual discription of the murder because he wanted the suspense to built, and it sort of forced the reader to take every little detail from each persons statements, and put it all in, piece by piece and make their own account of what happened. It's sort of makes you feel like a detective while reading this book when you observe the detail are are trying to make a case and find evidence. I believe this is the main reason why Capote held out, because if you can make the reader relate and feel a part of the book, then you've done your job as an author.
Courtney H.
I think that Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until Perry and Dick were caught so that the readers would have a chance to get to know the characters and to leave the readers in suspense. By not giving all the details Capote gave the readers a chance to learn about the killers and their personal lives. He gave the reader a chance to sympathize with the killers. He also kept the readers interested and in suspense by not revealing all the details until the killers were caught. I personally like to know all of the facts and by not revealing the details, Capote kept me interested until the very end.
ReplyDeleteCapote's book is kept interesting by saving the details of the murders until the end. During the beginning and middle of the book you find yourself liking Perry because he is displayed in large contrast to Dick. If you had known that Perry was the murder from the beginning and how gruesome he had been you would have built a natural dislike for him, if that was done Perry would be a character that was too difficult for most readers to build a relationship with; and without that relationship the book would have been much too slow to be an enjoyable read.
ReplyDeleteI think Capote did not describe how the murders happened until Dick and Perry were caught because, he wanted you to build a realtionship with them each individually. As we read the book we learn characteristics of each individual, which makes us understand them on a deeper level. We start to learn more about their past and how they were raised. Even though as readers we know they killed four innocent people, we still start to feel sympathy for them, and begin to like them more. Without this relationship we wouldn't care about Dick and Perry, we would only care about the fact that they were murderers, and assume they were heartless. When we find out the details of the murders, we sympathize with Dick and Perry, and know they aren't completely heartless. That is why I think Capote didn't describe the murder till they confessed.
ReplyDeleteI think that Capote didn't reveal the events of that night until the very end obviously to create suspense. Throughout the whole book you know most of the pieces to the puzzle, Where the murder happened, who did it. What the reader doesn't know is the motive and how its done. This story is not a classic "whodunnit". Also Capote wanted you to get a feel for the locations and the characters, such as providing a detailed past for both Dick and Perry so you can get to know them as people instead of cold blooded murderers . He doesn't reveal it all up front however. He gives you time to learn and uncover each little clue to their pasts by reading more.
ReplyDeleteMadeleine Gallaher
By choosing to refrain from revealing the actual sequence of events that occurred during the early morning hours of November 15th, 1959, Capote keeps the reader continually guessing at various possibilities, instilling suspense as well as an ongoing desire to know the details of how the murder was executed. In this sense, Capote is essentially making the reader an “investigator” of the crime. As the story progresses, Capote consistently drops the reader various hints on the “how” and the “why” behind the murder through the perspectives of both the killers and the detectives.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when Perry first brings up the name Floyd Wells, the reader is alerted that Wells is capable connecting the Clutter murder to Dick and Perry (Capote 87). However, the reader doesn’t know who Wells is or more importantly how Wells could make the connection that nobody else could. This information leaves the reader intrigued, thus maintaining interest in the plot surrounding the murder.
Additionally, I felt that Capote purposely left a “gap” in the narration when the murders occurred to allow the reader to sympathize with the people of Holcomb and beyond instead of merely writing the murders off as a “psychological accident” as it was later called (Capote 239). Had the account of the murders been described earlier, the reader would have found it difficult to understand the sheer fear and mistrust felt by the denizens of Finney County after November 15th. Knowing just as little about the crime as the rest of the residents, the reader holds the same convictions about the true nature of the killers as does the townspeople: labeling them as cold, ruthless, violent, and brutal. Only through this understanding can the reader experience the fear effusing from the Clutter deaths.
-Hannah C.
I believe Capote waited until the end of the book to reveal how the murders were described because he wanted to save a plot twist. Throughout the book, I was led to believe that Dick was the more disturbed of the two, that he was the most unremorseful and violent of the two. That caused my characterization of Dick to be an unstable maniac. However, at the end of the book I read that Dick, in fact, did not kill any of the Clutters; Perry was the murderer, and Dick was simply hanging with the wrong crowd. This drastically changed my view of Dick. I know saw him as simply a man astray, who unfortunately started something that ultimately destroyed him.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Capote left the descriptions of the murder for last to convey suspense in the reader, and to keep them reading. With the thoughts from Perry's guilt and the discoveries from the investigators, suspense is built throughout the novel. And Capote drags on the details little by little, til all exposed during the confessions at the end, to leave the reader wanting more and to keep the suspense from leaving the reader's mind.
ReplyDeleteCourtney Frye
I think that Capote didn’t describe how the murders occurred at the beginning for two reasons. First he didn’t want the readers to make up their mind about the criminals without knowing the hardships in their pasts, and it further connects the readers to the criminals because Dick and Perry describe how the murders happened, versus it just being a scene played out in the story. And, second, because that is the only detail left to build suspense on, for everyone knows the outcome to the story. We all knew the Clutters would be murdered and the criminals would be caught. So, that is the only thing to really keep us interested, which is why he waited until the end to give that final detail.
ReplyDelete-Tori J.
I think Capote waited until the two were caught to build suspense throughout the novel. If Capote had told you in the beginning the readers would be uninterested by the middle of the story because they would already be aware of what happend. He wants to keep his readers hanging on to every written word and by waiting until the end thats exactly what he is able to do. In the beginning he gave us minor details so we could make our own inferences about the ending.
ReplyDeleteAmanda M.
I agree with Tori that if Capote gave away all of the details of the crime right when it happens, then he loses what suspense he has left to build the story off of because he already told us at the beginning of the book that the criminals were going to kill the family and then die for their crimes. Also, when the investigators come to survey the scene, they do not immediately know how it happened, they can only find that out through examination of the evidence and interrogating the criminals. Though it is helpful to not know all the details so you can feel for the criminals. If Capote did give away every detail of the murders , we would not be able to get past the heinous crime they have committed to realize the human part of them.
ReplyDeleteWesley Cannon
I believe the way he structured the story was both in a literal sense and a physcological game with the readers mind. In the literal way the crimes had not been comitted yet, so the police could not just figure out what was done, that would leave no suspense to figure ou what happened and the leader could grow bored. The physcological game is implemented throughought the entire story. He builds up a general dislike for Dick, making it seem that he was the more insane and ruthless of the two, when it was none other then Perry who had done the murdering of the entire family.
ReplyDeleteI think Capote didn't tell the reader all the details of the killings just to create suspense, and to keep the reader interested in the book. Maybe he wanted you to try and guess who died first, who of the two shot the family, and so on. He also, probably wanted the reader to know a bit about Dick and Perry's past, so that one could maybe find out why Dick and Perry would kill the Clutter's like they did.
ReplyDeleteThe reason Capote didn't describe how the murders happened was because he wanted to have people still be able to connect with the killers. If he had told people in the beginning who they where, the readers would not want to hear Dick and Perry's side of the story. They would automatically write them off as bad people and not care for what they had to say in the rest of the novel.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until the end was to keep it suspenseful. When the reader reaches the part when Dick and Perry do confess it's a shock. Although the reader figured that they did it the whole time, they didn't realize the more seemingly sane and likable of the two had killed the whole family.
I think that Capote did not give murder details until the end in order to make you understand both sides of the story. I think that the first section is quite suspenseful it leads you right up to the murder but it gives very few details about the crime therefore the reader is in a confused anxious state. It’s like the tunnel before the gigantic drop on a roller coaster, it’s still scary as anything but you know there is something more than this and it has got to be worse. Then in the second section Capote makes you love the murderers, basically makes you live with them for a while. You come to accept them and understand them. Then the third section, the search for the answer. Now you feel suspense because you don’t want them to catch Perry and Dick but then you are impatient for the killers to be caught because you feel awful for the Clutters. If you didn’t read the second section you wouldn’t feel that suspense about the cops catching the killers. This is why the author chose to reveal the details in the third section and not the first. He wanted you to have a mixture of feelings that way you could understand the story from both the criminal’s side and the victim’s side.
ReplyDeleteBethany S.
The Clutter’s demise was a horrific one, and one not fully understood by those who don’t know Dick and Perry as the reader does. The reaction Capote is trying to invoke would be completely lost if the reader did not know the two men better than they know themselves. The feeling of shock that a human being could mercilessly slay four others and remain unremorseful would not have been achieved if Dick and Perry were not given a ‘fair chance’ to prove their ‘sanity’.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Capote waited till the end of the book so that he could create the suspense feeling the reader had from start to finish. I also believe that he did it so the reader could actually understand where Dick and Perry came from. If Capote was to reveal that they did commit the murders at the very begining then the reader wouldnt feel that sense of sympathy toward either Dick or Perry. The reader would also not be able to get that sudden gasp of when something catches them off gaurd; they would not have been able to get the "shock value."
ReplyDelete-Beaux Pace
I believed that Capote did this because it not only created suspense, but it also went well with the storyline.
ReplyDeleteIf had told us about it in the beginning, it would've been too soon. But that was also when the murder had happen which then created suspense for the readers.
But then there was the chaos of the police, townspeople, and investigators as well. He continued on with story, making us wonder what really happened during that night. He gave out little hints of what could've happened, since it was only those two who really knew what happened that night. But at the same time letting us know and understand more about Perry and Dick. Instead of just thinking that they are murderers.
By having it near the end, the author can finally let the readers read what have been wanting to know throughout the book.
-Diana T.
I think he did it to create a suspence filled first 3 sections so that the reader will be determined to know how the murders happend. when capote describes the murder after such suspence, where everything coninsided perfectly . He also described how each of the Clutters went to sleep the night before. The combination of the two sections makes the reader curious to know how they went.
ReplyDeleteBy waiting until the end to tell how the crime was commited, he not only created suspense, he allowed the readers to connect with the murders.
I am by no means a vegetarian, but I cannot eat an animal that I have killed or whose death I have witnessed. There is something far too personal about it: the act seems to me to sensationalize mortality. Any other meat, though, is fair game. I recognize the same phenomena in this book. Our reaction is far more quiescent when we are spared the lurid details and character complexity because without them the story has taken on very few anthropomorphic qualities. Our minds naturally numb themselves to ghastly tales of murder, treating them as statistic rather than experience. But when we are submerged in the reality of it, our hearts overtake our minds and we will accept it or be drowned. Capote, by withholding details, forces us to kill our food and it eat too. The reaction and the experience are intensified by omission and inundation and in the midst of such obfuscation, we are unable to come to a categorical, or even coherent, understanding of the characters involved. Somehow, reality manages to prevail over simplicity.
ReplyDelete--Jamal J.
I believe that Capote intentionally made us "live" with the Clutters for the entire first section of the book. He wanted us to learn their life so we would obviously feel more sympathetic when we read that they die. He left the real story to the almost end so we can first inject suspence into our brains because we knew they were going to die already we just never knew when, second play along with the books detectives to learn just what they know, and third because starting a book with an immediate murder would be unrelatable and depressing. I wouldn't want to read further. Therefore at the time of the confessions was the perfect time to break everything down to an understandable level.
ReplyDeleteSydney Garcia
If Capote blatantly described how all of the murders occurred from the beginning, then the whole mystery behind 'who was the true killer' never would have even happened. With the details thrown out into the open, a significant chunk of the suspense in the book would be for naught.
ReplyDeletePlus, he delayed till the end so we could truly attach ourselves to how Dick and Perry were, and how each of their upbringings affected them individually. If he didn't, then readers would judge how they feel for the two based off the gruesome story of how the four were murdered early in the book.
I believe the reason capote did not describe the murders of the clutter family in till Dick and Perry gave their confessions, because how the murders were committed were per say the climax of the story. The fact that as a reader you were denied the information on the murders kept you reading, it built up suspense. This gave the reader more time to humanize and sympathize with Dick and Perry. If you were told in the beginning about the details of the murder would make sympathizing with them that much harder. In conclusion, has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
ReplyDelete-clark driscoll
Capote holds important details about the Clutter murders back until after you've gotten to know the culprits for two reasons, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to build suspense and a little air of mystery about who the actual murderers were. For the first section of the book, I was almost certain there was going to be a significant plot twist that revealed that Perry and Dick actually had nothing to do with the murders.
Second, so that the reader can sympathize with them on a certain level and evaluate their crime and motives with a more impartial eye. By the end of the novel, the Clutter's were not the only "victims" in the situation. Perry stood out as a victim of his own upbringing, and a product of a radically violent and traumatizing childhood.
-Angela Boyrie
I feel that Capote didn't reveal the gruesome details of the murders until the end for several reasons. One being that Capote wanted the reader to realize how human these killers really were and to get close to Perry and Dick as human beings. If Capote had revealed the details of the murders in the beginning then the reader would of had a hard time feeling compassionate for Perry and Dick. Another reason that Capote doesn't just bare the specific aspects of the murders is because he wanted to create a sense of suspense within the book.
ReplyDeleteDalton K.
By delaying the descriptions of the murders until Perry and Dick were caught, Capote kept the readers curious. We as the readers wanted to know what exactly happened to the Clutters that were introduced as a well respected family. We were fed small hints progressively throughout the chapters of how Perry and Dick commited the crime. Capote hooked us in the beginning by describing the murder weapons, so by giving us that information we want to know how it will be used. Later when the Clutter's were found dead inside their home, Capote describes the scene which illustrates a little more of the whole story. This really keeps us on the edge of our seat because we anticipate when we will know the entirety of it. Prolonging the description of the crime was a great tactic in keeping us interested in the story.
ReplyDeleteI think that Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until Dick and Perry were caught and gave their confessions because he wanted to build suspense and keep the reader interested in what he was writing.
ReplyDeleteBesides the most obvious answer, which is to keep the reader interested and curios, Capote withheld the details as to what happened that ill-fated night when the Clutters met their end mainly because he wanted to reveal who these killers were. He wanted to tell their story, to show that they were ordinary human beings instead of ruthless killing machines. To me, it seemed like Capote wanted you to get to know these two men for who they were, where they came from, and what all they had been through. It appeared as he wanted you to see them for who they are before you truly find out the brutality of their crime. By doing this Capote illustrates these men's lives in a way that you almost feel sympathy towards them and their predicament, but upon finding out how they relentlessly murdered the Clutters for a total of forty-five dollars surprises and reminds the reader of their vindictive crime.
ReplyDeleteI think that Capote waited until the end to reveal the details of the Clutters' deaths to drag out the suspense. We already knew that they were going to die, but by leaving out how they died, he gave us a reason to read on.
ReplyDeleteThe author also may have been trying to help us to connect with the murderers. Like Rhuvana said, people may be more sympathetic to the murderer if they don't know how brutal the murderer killed the Clutters. That didn't really happen with me, though. Just the fact that the pair of them killed four innocent people pretty much put me off of them. I felt the same about them before we found how they had killed the Clutters and after.
Alecia H.
I think Capote wanted to keep his readers on there toes, you know, keep them guessing. That way when it finnaly came down to it, his readers would be surprised of what acctually happened or proud that they were correct all alone.
ReplyDeletein my oppionin i believe that capote did not tell the story untill after the killers were done is just baised on the fact of good wrighting. even tho i think capote is a dull wrighter his orginazation of details is artistic. he wanted to keep the suspence alive untill the very end and that is what makes it all the more Intrigueing
ReplyDeleteHe didn't explain the murder scene because it would've killed the suspense. He waited for dick and perry to get caught and confess. In doing this he wanted the reader to get caught up in the book and keep guessing. By the 2nd half of the book you know Dick and Perry committed the murder's you just don't know how they did it. By not telling us, Capote kept us, the readers, interested in the book.
ReplyDeleteAshley Tullos
4th period
I think capote didn't tell how the murder happened because he wanted to add suspence and so the readers got the full experience from the killers own lips. I think he also wanted us to better understand their character before he told their horrible deed so the reader wasn't predudice of the murders tell the very last Possible moment. This helps the reader form a sort of relationship and pity for the murders past and hardships they have and will endore.
ReplyDeleteNatasha Rutter
1st period
I think that Capote didn't describe how the murders happened until the end because he wanted to add suspense and keep the reader interested. Also, hearing how the murder was planned up to the point
ReplyDeletewere the victims were killed from Dick and Perry's own lips made the reader gain a perspective on their point of view. Before reading about how the murder took place Capote wrote a lot about Dick and Perry's personal lives and by including this in the book the reader views both Dick and Perry to be “normal humans”. However, towards the end of the book they are viewed as insane because of their brutalness and for committing a 'pointless crime'. In my opinion I believe Capote wanted to humanize the murders as much as possible so that the reader could connect with them enough to sympathize them.
Sands Casino | Resort & Resort Spa in Las Vegas
ReplyDeleteWith over 1,000 of your favorite slot machines, including classic Egyptian symbols and classic jackpot 메리트 카지노 slots, this Vegas Strip resort หารายได้เสริม offers a true septcasino locals