|
|
Post by sethfrost on Dec 8, 2014 1:02:07 GMT
I think that if someone gave you a book and did not tell you which one it was, fiction or true crime, you could not tell the difference. But, knowing that it actually occurred changes the story when you read it because it is real, the people were real and the crime happened; it makes it more than a story. Knowing that it really happened makes the story more ominous and bizarre because you feel like you know the people and you are taken into the crime scene and the minds of the criminals. The main difference between true crime and violent fiction is what it shows about us as humans, violent fiction is fiction and it can happen but it has not, but true crime shows what the dark side of people are truly capable of.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarahhoffmann88 on Dec 8, 2014 17:25:27 GMT
I agree with Seth because I think a reader could not tell the difference between a crime that actually occurred compared to a crime that the author made up on their own. I also agree that if the reader knows the crime truly occurred, it changes the way the readers interprets the passage. The reader's emotional side can get involved and it changes the way the reader looks at the different situations in the novel. The point Seth made about true crime showing the dark side of people is true and I think that it can change the way the reader feels about an author's presentation of the crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by natalieneace on Dec 9, 2014 0:23:33 GMT
I agree with Seth greatly in the fact that many true crime novels exploit the savagery in the minds of humanity. Many people have fought over whether humans are innately good or bad and this exploits that we have both. The way the readers perceive this can vary due to Capote's ability to show compassion towards Dick and Perry as humans, yet the pointlessness of their murders of the Clutter family.
|
|
