Capote and his literary non-fiction.

[brian]

By writing In Cold Blood, Capote created a new genre of writing, literary non-fiction. What does this mean? Literary non-fiction is taking an actual event and adding your own stylistic elements to describe that event in a story rather than a fact only report. In Cold Blood is an example of this because Capote took the murders of the Clutter family and changed it into a story where he added in some of his and others opinions rather than just reporting the facts like an official police report would do. Capote chose to report these murders like that because he felt a connection to the murderers. Capote wanted to show that we are all human and that we all can make mistakes. In writing like this, Capote manages to capture the readers heart and, while they know it is terrible, convinces the readers that the barbaric murderers were not so barbaric after all. They, just like us, had small yet terrible events in their lives that eventually drove them to this crime. By writing this in a literary non-fiction style, Capote manages to make the readers feel for the murderers.

There is a question that I feel has not yet been answered. Does Capote have a right to narrarate in a way that makes the audience cheer for the murderers? A caring, peaceful, and loving family was brutally murdered, yet Capote writes a book that makes the audience turn their backs on the shot-gunned family and cheer for the culprits. Aside from the first amendment arguments, does Capote have a right to torment the surviving Clutters with a book that cheers for the murderers? What do you think?

[benemery]

Hey there Brian. I really liked your question. Let me do my best to answer it.

First, you're REALLY exaggerating Capote's tendency to favor the murderers. He told their story. He told it objectively. In no way did Capote imply that the murderers should be "cheered for". Capote presents the lives of the killers as they truly were. He doesn't make them out to be saints. The bottom line is this;Capote balances the lives of the Clutters with the lives of Perry and Dick. Sure, he goes into more detail about the lives of the killers. But, (and I want you to look at this carefully) THAT DOES NOT MEAN CAPOTE IS BIASED TOWARDS THEM.

Second, I'm genuinely confused as to why you think the book is "a torment to the surviving Clutters". What did Capote do to offend the Clutters? If anything, the majority of the story portrays the Clutters in an unyieldingly positive way. If I were a member of the Clutter family, I'd be flattered, and incredibly grateful. I see no reason why In Cold Blood could possibly "torment" the Clutters.

[matthewgray]

I have to agree with Ben on this one - Capote doesn't glorify the murderers so much as he analyzes them. His purpose for providing Dick and Perry's perspectives doesn't seem to be to convince the audience into cheering for them as much as it is to present their side of the story - not necessarily to argue their innocence but rather to provide normally unknown insight into the lives and minds of murderers. Capote demonstrates to us that the world isn't as black-and-white as we often make it out to be; after all, Dick and Perry are just human. And although it doesn't relieve them of guilt it substantiates the idea that those we so adamantly villify are not always the monsters we may perceive them to be. Just like the fact that even Adolf Hitler took naps and ate lunch, knowing that Dick and Perry had hobbies, family, and emotions educates us on the ambiguity of our world, and provides us with insight into those who go against the very foundation of our society, maybe in the hope that further atrocities like this can be prevented.