January Modern Classic: In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

[mmack]

Just starting the thread so that we can sign in.

Just finished it. I really enjoyed it - it pulls you in right at the start, keeps you wanting to know more. I was also fascinated by the psychological profiling of the two young men, and surprised that even then, in the early 60s, psychiatrists were aware of the effect a childhood of emotional neglect and physical abuse could have on someone's personality. Perry Smith is such a strange and chilling character - capable of killing four innocent people and yet preventing his friend from raping Nancy because he thinks it's disgusting.

Several years ago I read Bill Bryson's The Lost Continent, and I remembered that he'd visited Holcombe and written about it. So I just checked what he has to say about the book, which is: "There was nothing particularly seminal about Capote's book. It was just a sensational and grisly murder story that pandered, in a deviously respectable way, to the reader's baser instincts."

He has a point, I think, though it's a little harsh. He also goes on to say that the people of Holcombe rather resented Capote for using the story for his own ends, and preferred not to talk about it - some of the teenagers he spoke to hadn't even heard of the book.

I just read the Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Cold_Blood) entry for it, and it says there are some exaggerations and fabrications, which is not totally surprising. But what I didn't know was that Harper Lee visited the town with him and conducted some of the interviews. Her contribution doesn't seem to be acknowledged in the book.

I absolutely loved this, when I read it last year. It was meticulous and compelling in equal measure. Plenty of research and detail, but written in such a way to make you keep turning those pages.

It does have that extra "edge" to it, as you keep being reminded that this was for real. Eek. Great choice by the way.

I've been following this thread but haven't contributed to it until now. I read it a year or so ago and m, whilst it is undoubtedly good, I was more sceptical about Capote's reasons for writing the book. This does show up more in the film, Capote, which I saw recently. He comes across as quite hard-faced in using the murder case for his own ends, quite unpleasantly manipulative. Just my thoughts, anyway.

Hackmum - Harper Lee'a contribution to Capote'a research is shown in the film and we see quite a bit of rivalry emerging between them over her novel being published first.

A few films have been made of this. I've not seen Capote, but there's another called Notorious, which stars Daniel Craig and the incredible Toby Jones.

I saw the film before I read the book, so I initially approached it as a work of reportage...I was thinking about the context in which the book was written, as opposed to the true crimes discussed. But it got under my skin. By the end, I was captivated, moved, and shaken. Brilliant book.

Apologies for typos, phone's silly little keyboard and clumsy fingers don't mix

I saw the Toby Jones film, but not the Philip Seymour Hoffman one. Sandra Bullock was Harper Lee in that version and had quite a big part. I remember enjoying it very much but I think I have forgotten a lot of the details so I don't think it will ruin the book for me.

Haven't seen either of the films - would like to.

Have been thinking a lot about the people who were murdered, particularly Nancy, who was only 16 (just a little older than my DD). If she'd lived, she'd now be 71 - so sad to think of a whole life lost just because two men decided to kill for no reason at all.

mmack don't worry, even if you remembered all the details, it wouldn't ruin the book for you. This book isn't about the plot. It's not a murder mystery, it's a deep exploration of every aspect of a brutal and desperate crime.

I've almost finished .

Dog ate my homework.

Crows swallowed the keys to the library.

Was chased from the house by lions.

So. I read the first few pages straight after unwrapping. Stopped. Had a week long migraine. Couldn't look at a book. (No probs with MN on phone ...)

I picked it up last night. Fussed and fidgeted and forced myself to keep going. There was mention of rope. I went to bed early (sans book.)

Today I am ill tempered and fretful. Number 1 Party Anthem and Britten's Canticles have had only limited success in bringing me back to normality.

I cannot believe I am doing this to myself. It's pretty clear that without this thread I would live and die without ever touching this hateful book. (Beautifully written and composed ...)

Never been so embarrassed in m'life. Will keep going. You are not my friend OP.

Goodness I must be old. Loving the part where the old friends go and clean up the house - removing all the DNA and other clues. Perhaps it won't matter.

I just want to say that I'm still planning to be here Monday 26th to discuss the book. I haven't read the book yet because I'm bad at remembering character names and I want them to be fresh in my mind, but I'm going to start it in the next few days.

Note to self: the Personal Dictionary was the point where I realised I wasn't hating this any more.

After weeks of swerving.

i'd like to join in too
i have borrowed in cold blood from the library , at first i couldnt get into it at all and almost gave up but now i am totally gripped !

Just marking my place again - would be interested in discussing, once we've all read it.

Hi guys. I hope some people who read the book will be around later to discuss it. I'm posting some questions now and I'll be back around 8.30 when my house and children are a bit more organised.

1. Truman Capote claimed that everything in the book is true. Do you believe it is or do you think that he was influenced by Perry into romanticising the middle part of the story? If you don't believe that it's all factual does it matter?

1. The book was published soon after the executions. The existence of the book must have been very difficult for the Clutter family and their friends, particularly the surviving sisters and Bobby. Do you think it was a story that needed to be told? Do you think Capote was entitled to use a horrible crime as the basis for his book?

1. I thought it was very much a book of its time. I'm thinking of the 1950s and 1960s in America as a time when films like Rebel Without A Cause and The Wild One were very popular. Do you think anyone would write a book about a similar crime now? Also, do you think this book would ever have been written if Dick and Perry were black?

1. Who do you think was more guilty of the crime, Dick or Perry? Would they ever have done anything so evil if they hadn't been together?

May I insert this Guardian article about a new book on the subject compiled from contemporaneous notes? It's from December last year so most people may have seen it anyway. But very relevant to the OP's first question!

Will pop back later and let you know my thoughts, such as they are...

I think there were exaggerations to the story. In 'a rare interview' Bobby said some of the things he said / did in the book are not true. I really felt for the surviving characters. Due to the success of the book and author the interest in their lives and their small town has continued far longer than if Capote had never written the book and this just feels wrong to me.
It may have been written of they were black but I imagine that the book would not have portrayed the killers in the same way.
For some reason I felt Dick was more culpable even though Perry actually killed the family.
I was quite gripped by the book though it's not a genre I will be returning to due to the 'tragedy tourist' feeling!

"Tragedy tourism" is a neat phrase. Although with regard to the question do you think it was a story that needed to be told? I'd say it was more authorial vanity than curiousity. Exactly the same story could have been told as "pure" fiction.

I was trying to keep my original questions neutral but I didn't like this book at all. There was a part in the first section where Nancy was chatting to Kenyon about her nephew and Capote lost me there. I can't imagine how awful it would have been for her sisters to read that. Also I don't think Capote should have focussed so much on the relationship between Nancy and Bobby. It says at the end that Bobby got married and the book must have hung over that marriage.

I have to say I have selfishly been thinking less about the effect on those surrounding the case than about my own feelings on reading it. So it's good that you've asked a question I would never have asked myself. I could never say that a writer was not entitled to use whatever material appeared before them - and in fact if he had had a connection to the victims I'd feel that he was entirely justified. It seems morally reprehensible to pick over someone else's tragedy in this way; neither journalism nor fiction.

You asked whether his claim, that everything in the book was true, was itself credible. There's one particular passage that worried me, given that it's all supposed to be observation or from interviews. Where the suicide of Perry's SIL and then her husband is described - did the police really have the forensic evidence to work out how they had both died? Perhaps they did. But I don't like to think that he just made it up.

I've read a lot of autobiographies and memoirs where I've thought that people mentioned in the book must have been upset to read it. For example, I imagine that the Day-Lewis family can't have liked what Elizabeth Jane Howard wrote about Cecil. But in my opinion any person is entitled to write about their own experiences. I just feel that in some way Capote took ownership of the last days of the Clutter family in a way that didn't respect the people who really mourned them. If the book had been written 50 years after the crime I think I would feel differently.