Confidence is Key - At What Cost? Final Wrap Up.

Truman Capote was boasting about In Cold Blood being the best crime novel of the decade before he had even written a single word of it. His innovation of the nonfiction novel has transcended nearly half a century, remaining a terrific influence on writers and readers alike. Typically, in my own experience, I would have called bullshit upon hearing this claim without any actual evidence to back it up. Yet here I am scratching my head and contemplating how Capote could have possibly known the powerful force that become hailed as one of the best crime books ever written. This is especially peculiar to me because originally Capote had set out to write nothing more than a magazine editorial on the paranoia experienced by a community that has experienced a traumatizing tragedy. Did he have similar hopes and expectations of fame and fortune with the expose? Or did this new braggadocio come with the new idea of fleshing the piece out into a full length novel?

            At this point in his career, Capote had already written Breakfast at Tiffany’s, which is still a pop culture phenomenon, being alluded to in literature and music and movies to this day. Topping the success of that story was not going to be an easy feat, especially when shifting genres so drastically. His partner in crime, (pun fully intended), Harper Lee, only ever wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, and was so discouraged by the thought of failing to produce another critically acclaimed masterpiece, she never published another work again. However, after In Cold Blood, Capote would not release much more than collections of short stories which never even came close to even vaguely reminiscent success. What did he lose? Was it the willpower to repeat the research, writing, and revising process? Or was it the courage to take the risk? What did he gain? A deeper, darker knowledge and understanding of the human mind and heart and how it works and what happens when things are out of sorts? Did he see something in himself that only Perry Smith could have showed him – was it something any of us would have ever wanted to see? Capote always did remark about how similar they were to the other: “it’s like we both grew up in the same house – I walked out the front door and he walked out the back” (Infamous). I wonder what they were doing in that house together – possibly taking the lives of four innocent family members in the middle of the night in Holcomb, Kansas?

Capote had always been intrigued by crimes and those who commit them, and considering his homo-erotic relationship with Perry Smith I am wondering if he had fetishized the psychopath. This may have been the reason he allowed himself to grow so close with the inmate on death row – insatiable curiosity. This doomed relationship would mentally disrupt Capote and never allow him to return to the “normal” (well, normal for him, anyway) life he had enjoyed prior to excavating the details of the case and the men behind the madness. Karma is a bitch, and this could be a stretch of logic, but could his ill-fated romance with Perry have been his penance for getting involved with the story in the first place? Once he demanded lengthening the project and extending his stays with both Hickock and Smith, the future was decided. The domino effect would play out over the next several years, ending in heartbreak and leading to alcoholism for Capote. He would eventually die due to complications of his coping mechanism.

Love is Blind?

     One thing we're all admittedly fascinated and confused by is Truman Capote's "alleged" affair with Perry Smith. We "have reason to believe" that Truman bribed and bargained his way into the cells of both Hickock and Smith, but that he continued these gestures of generosity and kindness in order to maintain not only his research with both but a romantic relationship with Perry. Guards at the prison supposedly accepted sums of cash in order to go on breaks and take walks so that the two could have alone time together. Apparently, every single correspondence Perry was allowed was addressed to "Friend Truman" and signed "Your amigo, Perry". 

     I am wondering how much of a factor time played in the development of a relationship - I mean, it's only crucial to the development of an overall person, after all. Is it possible to "forget" that someone committed  a quadruple homicide in cold blood long enough to fall in love with them? Each artistic portrayal that I have seen thus far has very similar artistic perspectives concerning the first moment that Truman and Perry lay eyes on each other - when Perry is getting out of the police car and being walked inside the courthouse after arriving from the point of arrest in Las Vegas. As he is limping along accompanied by guards all around, surrounding by the watching eyes of the masses of people standing silently, simply observing the killers: Perry and Truman's gazes lock and hold. This mysterious moment is utterly ambiguous and therefore frustrating - what are they thinking? What are they seeing in each other in that moment? How are they judging each other? Do they at all realize the future about to unfold before them? Basically, I just want to know, was the attraction instantaneous? Not necessarily love at first sight like Romeo & Juliet, but you know what I mean.

     Truman spent a great deal of time with Perry over the course of five years - getting to know him, but for what purpose? Was it always research for the book, or research for bonding? How many of those sessions were personal visits? Was there ever even a distinction or did the two always meld together?

     Then there is the idea of change. Perry slashed a knife across Mr. Clutter's throat and then put four bullets into the four members of the family, how sympathetic can someone so lacking in sympathy and empathy be? Or could he transform over the course of five years? In general, people like to believe in second chances and the power of positive change in a person's life; that they are capable of doing it provided a motive and the willpower to achieve that goal. In this case, we almost don't want to believe it's possible, but does that necessarily mean that it isn't? Based on the book, one could make an argument saying it most certainly is possible to "regain humanity", but the fact of the matter is that Perry never does - contrary to the novel's ending, he does not apologize. How could he have changed his ways and learned to love Truman, but missed the lesson on the error of his ways?

     I also wonder about balance. Hindsight is 20:20, but at what distance? Near or far sighted? Personally, I believe it be the latter. When first reading the book, I marveled at how well Capote balanced the stories of the Clutters, the people of Holcomb and Garden City, the investigators and prosecution. However, now I am seeing that Capote's original goal seemed to have been lost. His initial idea for his New Yorker Magazine article was to understand how a small, tight-knit community would be affected by the horrific tragedy. That seems to be lost after the second section - the community he was originally so concerned with barely has a voice. I also used to defend Capote - I didn't understand where people were seeing the partisanship towards Perry. I naively believed that Dick was such a despicable character with such apathy and nonchalance that his story was told fairly and authentically as he would have conveyed to the author. Now, I'm not so sure - was Dick unjustly crucified for Perry's benefit? Simply to provide contrast via means of juxtaposition to an extreme? 

     It's times like this when I wish I had been there - just living during that time to follow the case and the release and reaction to In Cold Blood, but maybe also as a fly on the wall, so we could know once and for all what really went down during those five years. Then again, that could get real awkward real fast, so perhaps it is better not to know...

That's a Wrap!

                Overall, I’ve really enjoyed this book club project. From reading the novel, to the blog posts, to the final presentation, I feel like I’ve gotten a clearer and better understanding of the book itself. In Cold Blood can be very dense at times, and the way Capote writes the novel can also be very complex. Having the blog posts every week to sort out my thoughts on the events of the book was very helpful, as well as being able to read other people’s perspectives. When there was something I was confused, or was just having a hard time keeping up with the events of the book, reading it in simpler terms of the blog was very beneficial.

                In our final presentation, we put Capote on trial as an author. His inclusion of Perry’s apology, which had been proven as false by Dewey who was present at the execution, caused us to question everything else Capote included in the novel. Discovering all of the different allegations against Capote, like hiring the lawyers for Dick and Perry, and that Harper Lee may have been a coauthor as opposed to just a research assistant, and the fact that he included the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of Perry which was never actually stated at the trial was really interesting. I was skeptical from the beginning about whether or not the book would actually be factual due to Capote’s involvement in the lives of everyone for almost six years. He became close to Perry, Dick, Dewey, and countless others, that it is my opinion that it was not possible for his to remain unbiased.

                There was also the matter of his relationship with Perry, which has been confirmed on several occasions. It is no secret that throughout the novel he tries to gain sympathy for him by including his background information, and of course, as aforementioned, his fabrication of Perry’s apology. By the end of the novel, and especially afterwards I found myself seriously questioning Capote, and judging the book overall, which I never would have done if I was simply just reading the book; the blog posts and project made me consider other things as well.

                In Cold Blood helped me confirm my opinion that no book can ever be presented as strictly fact. Someone has to have done research and been involved, and people cannot be trusted to leave their opinions out and remain unbiased. Therefore, though Capote claims to have pioneered this new journalism or creative nonfiction, I do not believe it can necessarily be called nonfiction. Unless it is a list of pure facts, I would be hesitant to put it under the genre of nonfiction, especially after reading this novel.

                

Final Thoughts on the Final Moments

Well, this is the end. The book is finished. I'm sitting here struggling through my thoughts on the ending, as I'm trying to write this. I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. I'm not going to get all emotional and all that, but there was quite a lot going on in this last part.

Dick and Perry were finally executed. They were left to hang on April 14, 1965. The final two scenes of the story were extremely chilling for me. The first being that we are brought into the warehouse where the gallows are and we see the execution for Detective Dewey's perspective.

This man is uncomfortable and disturbed by just about everything that he sees that day. He is upset by the idle and casual chatter that the other detectives engage in before the two men are led in, the hangman's restlessness over what seemed to be an execution that was taking too long for his liking, and even Perry's final parting words.

But I don't entirely blame him in the case of the latter. Perry apologized for the murders. He even says that it is probably too late and almost inappropriate, but she still apologizes. I don't know how many of you were expecting the man who killed four people to say "I'm sorry", but he did. I literally have no idea what to think. Is it sincere? Why is he saying it now? Would he have said it if there were different witnesses present at the execution? So many questions that I don't have answers to that I wish I had.

I'm a little shocked by how the entire book ended after that. I expected that the last scene we, as readers, were going to be presented with was a focus on one or both of the men hanging or one of the characters other thoughts as they presented their final thoughts about the case or the family or the murderers themselves.

While we do get a little bit of this, I wasn't expecting to see a reflection on all of this in a recalled memory for Dewey's past. He remembers a time when he went to visit his father's grave and he also ran into Nancy's childhood friend, Susan Kidwell. They shoot the breeze for a bit and before we can get any possible information about any residual feelings for the Clutters, Susan runs off in a hurry as if she is late for something. Dewey is then left to watch Susan dash away and reminisce about what a lovely young lady Nancy would have grown up to be.

To me, it seems like one of the main focuses of this book from the start and throughout a good part of the story was to present to the reader the tale of how the Clutter family was murdered and the surrounding case of the murderers fate. So this seems like an unsatisfying ending if that was the whole point of the book. We really don't have a clear way of knowing anyone's final residing thoughts on the Clutter family murders. Sure it's peaceful to think of how the wheat sways in the wind, but I wanted hear some final parting words. No big hurrah I was looking for I guess.

Overall, would I recommend this book: I honestly don't have a clear answer in this moment. I'm at home right now and my parents have walked by and seeing how I'm done, have asked how I like the book and I just don't quite know how to feel.

While the entire story and the way this was told was extremely riveting and fascinating, I don't know how I feel about the focus on Perry throughout the whole book. Does Capote have some type of bias toward Perry and is he trying to show something with this particular highlight on him? I have no idea why he decided to put this into the story, and I'm struggling to figure out what exactly he was trying to accomplish by doing this.

Trial Troubles

I found that there were quite a few things that surprised me with regards to the trial in this section.

First of all, I can't believe that the physician that diagnosed Perry and Dick to see if they could be diagnosed as insane didn't get to share what he found. By law, the only way the doctor could answer the question that was given to him was by a yes or no answer. A properly formulated question by the prosecutor in this case was enough to hide some of the information.

Both of these men's actions could have been excused by some very elaborate explanation of their mental processes. This might have been enough to sway some of members of the jury's minds and this could have possibly been enough to get these men out of a serious sentence. But the doctor did not get a chance to explain his diagnosis and the men were eventually found guilty.   

I was also surprised that Perry's old friend, Don, from the army came to support him in this case. These men only knew one another for a short period of time and had not talked for years, but for some reason Don felt like he had to travel miles in order to be there for his old friend. Their relationship is almost romantic in nature. Reunited after so many lost years or something along those lines.

Just the fact that Perry tells Don when he visits his cell that he should just kill himself right then and there while Don was still there, so that way he could die next to "somebody who cares about [him] a little bit", is one of the strongest lines in the book for me. It's so desperate and longing. It breaks my heart. I guess that's my sappy side coming out.

I also wondered for a while why the last section of the book was called "The Corner". The case was coming to a close and each of the previous sections summed up what was the major point or idea presented in that section and I knew kind of what to expect in each section before I even started reading i.e. "Persons Unknown" or "Answer". So I was very confused as to how this title was going to fit in.

The result of the trial was that Dick and Perry were found guilty and they were sentenced to death. They were taken to Lansing and they were to stay there for six weeks until they are to be hanged or as the prisoners call it, "gone to the corner".

*Ding* Light bulb. Mystery solved.

I wish I could accurately set up the moment where the section title makes sense in this blog post like it was done in the book. It was actually very chilling.

As if being put to death wasn't bad enough, (whether or not this is a fit punishment or sentence is not what I'm arguing) there almost seems to be a bit of a sick joke going on here.

These men are to be hanged on Friday the 13th, one minute after midnight.

Friday the 13th, the day of ultimate superstition and bad luck. How ironic.

And one minute after midnight. So the second the clock ticks around to the 13th, their lives will be ended. This is much more suspenseful than being hung at 4:00 in the afternoon per say. I'm surprised that this ended up being how their sentence worked out.

Last blog post coming up soon. Resolutions to follow, I hope.

The End...

For time’s sake, I’m going to wrap up the last two sections of the book into one blog post. The Corner is the final piece of the novel in which we find out information about the trials of the two men and their convictions. As you could have anticipated, both men were put on death row, or “The Corner” as it in referred to (clever title Capote).

                What I felt was most interesting to read about these sections was the way both men handled their jail time. Dick was perfectly calm, smoking and reading erotic novels and Perry just wrote in his journal. While they both had thoughts of escape, as any person would being locked in a room, I found it odd that neither really protested their predicament. Even when they were sentenced to death, Dick said he accepted his fate and has no hard feelings, and while Perry is against it, he apologizes. These were not the reactions I was expecting.

                Also, Capote continues to tell the story the same way he has throughout the novel: only giving the information through the descriptions of the characters, careful not to tell it through his words. However, there is one moment in the novel when Capote does implement his own opinion. During the trial, the psychologist on the stand is cut off from saying something, and Capote fills in what he believes she was going to say, and that is that Perry was a paranoid schizophrenic. Now, in some cases, people who are deemed insane, or who were unfit to make their own choices during a crime are sometimes given a different sentence than if they were not prescribed this way. No one will ever know if this was the case for Perry. However, it is clear that in this instance, Capote was still trying to gain the reader’s sympathy for Perry, as he had more subtly throughout the rest of the book. In this way, I agree with Kelly below when she feels slighted by Capote. He wanted to write the honest truth about a case and remain as unbiased as he could, but he was unable to do so because of his relationship with Perry. He slips up and with this he alludes to all of the other times throughout the novel where this is the case. How can he be trusted as an author is he was a player in the game?

                Overall though, I did really enjoy this book. While all of his claims and insights may not be trustworthy, Capote does an excellent job of telling the story and keeping the mystery alive throughout. To be honest, I believe both men got what they deserved for their crimes, and am glad I know the whole story of what happened to the Clutter’s on that fateful night. 

Looking Back...

I cannot help but wonder how much did Truman Capote's relationship with Perry Smith taint his telling of the story. The gruesome details of the crime scenes do not seem like they were in any way altered to better the appearance of their killer. The backstory of Smith mirrors the portrayal of his partner, Dick Hickock's. Family, childhood, adolescence, were all covered in equal share without preference or imbalanced weight of importance.

It's different to know that Capote and Smith had a homosexual relationship and affectionate bond than to actually see it. I was aware of the affair before starting the book, and I kept looking for evidence of bias and unfairness towards one of the convicts versus another - I couldn't see it. The only way I personally figured out that Perry would be the one was because I found him more attractive than Dick. Seriously that was my reasoning. I asked myself which of these two men I would rather be with and the answer was simply Perry - he was more human. Could this possibly be a result of Capote's depiction of the man behind the monster? Yes I will accept that - but Dick seemed, well, like a dick, and I believe that he was as much in real life as he became immortalized in this writing.

However, once I saw the movie, I was scared. I felt like I had been lied to. I felt like Capote had fooled me - led me to believe that I was safe and then taken me along for a ride of vulnerability. I saw the homo-erotic nature of the tension during conversations between Smith and Capote as they were portrayed in Infamous, and I see so much of Capote catering to Smith's needs and wants as they grow closer. Allegedly (although this is not shown in the film), Capote used to bribe the guards to take a walk so that he and Smith could have alone time together. How can you possibly be neutral when there is sex involved?! I'm disgusted, personally. Perhaps this is how the people of Holcomb felt when this avant-garde writer came into town, asking questions and expecting them to let their guard down for a stranger. I feel played. Is this natural?

Honestly I'm scared that if I read the book again I will find traces of partisanship everywhere. That each x and o will bleed with hugs and kisses and longings for Smith - that I will become angry with Truman for deceiving me, hurt because I trusted him to tell me the truth, much like Perry did throughout the film. I want to think that the only injustice committed in the 343 pages of the book are confined to the final few pages. I know that this is probably way too optimistic. I feel like Truman took advantage of the fact that this material fascinates me - that I wanted to get inside the head of a sociopath.

On the other hand, I could be taking this way too personally and getting all emotional and offended for no good reason. I highly doubt that I am alone in my feelings, but perhaps they are exaggerated. I just felt so invested in something that was inevitably shattered. Can anyone validate or disqualify these stirrings?