Final Book Blog for "In Cold Blood"

Prompt: Comment on the perspective from which the book is told and how the
author’s choice affects your relationship with the book’s content.

The book starts out with Capote narrating some basic background information on Holcomb and the clutter family, with the final result of the crime in this murder story already being hinted to at the very beginning, like when Mr. Clutter "headed for home and the day's work, unaware that it would be his last" (p. 12). The way the author chose to tell the story says alot, especially considering that "In Cold Blood" was the very first of its kind - the nonfiction novel, because he is taking a true event and building an intense story so that the reader can literally experience what really happened.

As the story develops the scenes change quickly between the perspectives of different characters, from Mr. Clutter, Nancy, and the rest of the family, to Dick and Perry, who are making their way towards Holcomb. The scene-to-scene action, which continues throughoug the book, kind of resembles a movie in the way it flows and Capote does not reveal much information at first and leaves much up for interpretation. For example, on page 55 the scene changes from nancy filling out her diary before bed, to the two men pulling up at a house - "The bank, that must be the bank, now we turn west - see the trees? This is it, this has to be it". The scene is completly unannounced and the scene that follows it is the discovery of the dead bodies the next morning. - "He was getting out of the car to go after them when he heard the screams, but before he could reach the house, the girls were running towards him. His daughter shouted, 'She's dead!' and flung herself into his arms. 'It's true, Daddy! Nancy's dead!'" (p. 58).

The reader had suspicion that Dick and Perry would be the killers, but its not actually known for sure until after the murders take place and the bodies are discovered. At this point, with the major events out of the way, i began to wonder what the specific details of the murders were, what the motive was, how they did it, etc.

As the story shifts to the longest, most detailed part of the book, it becomes clear that the main focus is on the investigation of the murders and the analysis of the killers, mainly Perry, who's tough past kind of leads me to sympathize a little bit. "I finished the third grade," (p.128) Perry (who considers himself an intellectual) recalls, as he describes a lonely childhood where his family abandons him. Giving Perrys perspective and life story is perhaps Capote's way of giving the facts so that the reader can pass judgement on him and whether what he did is somehow from a psychologic illness (at the end of the book, it mentions that the court psychologist asks him to write down his life story and is "unsure" about his mental wellfare p. 265)

Capote's scene-to-scene writing technique throughout the book, which leaves so much specific information unsaid, is probably meant so that the reader becomes engaged in the story. As i read i imagined what the motives could have been, if they'd get caught, when they'd get caught and how. Cleverly, the actual details of the murder are revealed only when the killers make their confessions. The story kind of reminds me of Prison Break, in a less dramatic way. After finally being captured, the interrigation kind of acts as a climax to the middle part of the book, answering the questions - like when presented with overwhelmin evidence, Dick cracks under interrigation: " 'Perry Smith killed the Cutters' he lifted his head, and slowly straightened up on the chair, like a fighter staggering to his feet. 'It was Perry. I couldn't stop him. He killed them all' "

In conclusion, i think the perspective Capote chose to write the book from was obviously diverse with characters, all of whom gave their own viewpoints and leads me the reader to do a little investigation work of my own, which is how the perspective shapes my relationship with the content.

"In Cold Blood" 3

"I was always thinking about Dad, hoping he could come take me away, and I remember, like a second ago, the time I saw him again. Standing in the schoolyard. It was like when the ball hits the bat really solid. Di Maggio. Only Dad wouldn't help me. He told me to be good and hugged me and went away. It was not long afterward my mother put me to stay in a Catholic orphanage. The one where the Black Widows were always at me. Hitting me. Because of wetting the bed. Which is one reason I have an aversion to nuns. And God. And religion. but later on I found there are people even more evil. Because after a couple of months, they tossed me out of the orphanage, and she put me some place worse." pg 128

I think this passage is important because it shows the human side of Perry, a small portion of all the charicterization Capote puts into Perry. Even though he is a killer, i guess its easier to sympathize knowing he's had a tough childhood - 3rd grade education, being abandoned, etc. It is also interesting why Capote devoted such a long chapter to describing Perry and his childhood, while mostly igoring Dick, the other killer. Knowing that the book is non-fiction, and that Capote had obsessively researched this story, it may be that he just liked the guy more and wanted to put more of what led Perry to do the things he did into the book, instead of it having any particular importance to the book in comparison to the other characters.

Questions:
Why so much perry charicterization? still no idea on the killing motivation...
Why do they go to mexico, then come back?

"In Cold Blood" 2

"He was getting out of the car to go after them when he heard the screams, but before he could reach the house, the girls were running towards him. His daughter shouted, 'She's dead!' and flung herself into his arms. 'It's true, Daddy! Nancy's dead!'
Susan turned on her. 'No, she isn't. And you don't you say it. Don't you dare. It's only a nosebleed. She has them all the time, terrible nosebleeds, and thatt's all it is.'
'There's too much blood. There's blood on the walls. You didn't really look.'" pg 58

At this point in the book, it becomes evident that the Clutter family has finally been murdered, after a suspenseful scene-to-scene desctription of the Clutters and two men, who are the killers, even though it is not explicitly that there's any connection between them and the Clutters throughout the book. The whole time, i had been thinking, well ok he's describing them moving towards Holcomb, but are they the killers? Why is it relevant? It is also important to note that Capote did not describe or even mention the actual killings at all - he skipped from the family going to bed and the two men pulling up to their house, to the next morning in this passage where Nancy is found dead. I think the purpose of this is to leave the reader to wander what happened, why, and how, and give you alot of room for imagination, enhancing the overall reading experience.

Questions:
Why skip the murder scene?
Why did Perry and Dick (the two guys) murder them? what is the motive?
Why are they already dead and i still have most of the book left to read?

"In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote. Blog 1.

"But then, in the earliest hours of that morning in November, a Sunday morning, certain foreign sounds impinged on the normal nightly Holcomb noises - on the keening hysteria of coyotes, the dry scrape of scuttling tumbleweed, the racing, receding wail of locomotive whistles. At the same time not a soul in sleeping Holcomb heard them - four shotgun blasts, that, all told, ended six human lives. But afterwards the townspeople, theretofore, sufficiently unfearful of each other to seldom trouble to lock their doors, found fantasy recreating them over and over again - those sombre explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust in the glare of which many neighbours viewed each other strangely, and as strangers."

Prior to the above passage, Mr Capote had just gotten done explaining the monotonous every-day life of the small, obscure village of Holcomb, suddenly interrupted by a terrible murder. Being at the very beginning of the book, it is the first hook to bring the reader in, telling you what is ultimately going to happen, using imagery ("dry scrape of scuttling tumbleweed", etc). In the following chapter he procedes to describe the main victim and his life story. Why tell from this perspective, and not the killers'? Furthermore, his highly metaphorical description of the impact of the killings' on the village ("sombre explosions that stimulated fires of mistrust" - love it) also serves as part of the hook to drag the reader in. I like Capote's style of writing. I wouldn't normally bother reading a book where the ultimate outcome is already known, but this book is already interesting starting from page 3. It's kind of like Oedipus Rex in some ways, where the whole thing has already happened but the focus is on the how/who/when/what.

Questions:
Why tell the story from the victim's perspective? How does this benefit the buildup of the story?

Final Blog Post

Prompt:
"Does the author state her/his purposes overtly? If so, state the purpose in
your blog and several passages that support your position. If the purpose is
implicit, tell what you think the purpose of the book is and why, and provide
several passages that support your position."

For Whom the Bell Tolls, as it turns out, was a rather complex book to read. The basic story of the american, Robert Jordan, fighting and dying with the guerillas in the Spanish mountains paints a grim image of the brutality of war. Skillfully inserted into the conversations of the main characters lie depictions of the silly squabbles of politics and idealism and possibly a sort of "live for the moment" view on life.

The most obvious theme of the book is the reality and brutality of war and death. From the very beginning, the mission of blowing up the bridge in conjuction with a loyalist attack seems unlikely to succeed, like when a large formation of planes passed over their camp -
"It is bad, Robert Jordan thought. This is really bad. Here is a concentration of planes which means something very bad." (pg. 76)
This sets the feeling of impending doom for the rest of the book, and because he thinks he probably wont live, he and most people around him "live for the moment". Jordan and the girl Maria fall in the love the very first day they meet. The book, 400 pages, is by no means long, but not short either, yet it vividly describes only three days of his life. Pilar encourages Maria and Jordan to make love, because "there is not much time" (pg. 91). In essence, the couple live their entire lives in those three days, because given the circumstances and times of war, they may not be able to live it later on.

Another major theme in the book is analysis and criticism of ideology and bereaucracy. At the beginning of the book, Jordan fights for the republic because he whole-heartedly believes in the communist cause and sympathises with fellow republicans. Gradually he is frustrated by the inefficincies of th loyalist army, describing leaders as "old bald, spectacled, brave-and-as-dumb-as-a-bull, propaganda-built-up defenders of Madrid" (pg.233). He is asked if he is a communist and he replies "No I am an anti-fascist." Thus, he has changed his reasons for fighting. He no longer fights for an ideology, but rather against a wicked regime. In the process, realizes that he and the enemy are not much different, because they were both manipulated by idealistic propoganda into fighting eachother. By telling this story, Hemingway is critisizing ideology and how leaders us it to propogate (if thats a verb? im not sure...) and exploit people.

book blog 2

"Do you know anything about a machine gun?" he asked the old man.
"Nada," said Anselmo. "Nothing."
"And thou?" to the gypsy.
"That they fire with much rapidity and become so hot the barrel burns the and that touches it," the gypsy said proudly.
"Every one knows that," Anselmo said with contempt.
"Perhaps," the gypsy said. "But he asked me to tell what I know about a maquiana and I told him." Then he added, "Also, unlike an ordinary rifle, they continue to fire as long as you exert pressure on the trigger."
"Unless they jam, run out of ammunition or get so hot they melt," Robert Jordan said in English.
"What did you say?" Anselmo asked him.
"Nothing," Robert Jordan said. "I was only looking into the future in English." (pg. 20)

This passage describes the type of people who are fighting this guerilla war in the mountains. The people, who were talking around a fire at a guerilla camp, were gypses and obviously were never proffessional soldiers, because they didnt know anything about weapons. Also, i had no idea that they were speaking spanish the entire time. I thought they were speaking english so Robert could understand, until that "Robert Jordan said in English" part.

Why are they talking in old english??? and thou??? whats up with that? i cant figure out if its just because its 1938 or it means something or its just completly random.

For Whom the Bell Tolls Blog 1

"He could see a trail through the grass where horses had been led to the stream to drink and there was the fresh manure of several horses. They picket them here to feed at night and keep them out of sight in the timber in the daytime, he thought. I wonder how many horses Pablo has?
He remembered now noticing, without realizing it, that Pablo's trousers were worn soapy shiny in the knees and thighs. I wonder if he has a pair of boots or if he rides in those alpargattas, he thought. He must have quite an outfit. But i don't like that sadness, he thought. That sadness is bad. That's the sadness they get before they quit or before they betray. That is the sadness that comes before the sell-out." (pg. 12)

I think this is an important passage in the build-up of the main guy's character (Robert Jordan). First of all, he seemed to know alot about horses, knowing how they were fed and why Pablo's pants were thin. Earlier in the story it says he is an american who came to spain to fight, making me think he was some random unexperienved eager revolutionary or something. This passage made me think he might actually know a thing or two, and probably had been in Spain for quite a while or had a tough childhood and grown up on a farm somewhere (which he probably did, in the depression and all). Secondly, his interpratation of Pablo's sadness leads me to believe Robert is an experienced soldier, but more importantly, cautious and not easily trusting. All of this builts a solid "noble" character for the main guy, which makes it easier for the reader to "feel sorry for" or whatever later in the story (assuming he gets into some tricky situations, which he probably will).

Questions:

Why did he volunteer to fight?
Does his suspicion of Pablo's sadness have anything to do with his own personal experiences with betrayal?