As an English reader I had not heard of the Clutter massacre, and all I knew about Truman Capote was his novel "Breakfast at Tiffany's". It took a while before I recognised this novel as truly great. The 1950's domesticity did not appeal to me. It seemed alien, claustrophobic, gender-specific and rather dull. But after a while I realised the genius in describing the setting of this time and place to the minutest detail. The "New York Times" calls In Cold Blood "The best documentary account of an American crime ever written." It is a ground-breaking book by Truman Capote, generally agreed to be the first factual novel, although others had explored the idea before. It is about the murders in 1959 of the Clutter family at their farmhouse in Holcomb, Kansas. The four murders received a lot of media attention, as the motive was unclear. Partly because of this Capote and his friend author Harper Lee decided to travel to Kansas to write about the crime before the killers were apprehended. They painstakingly interviewed all the local residents and investigators, taking numerous notes which Capote subsequently worked into his novel over the next six years. The killers, Dick Hickock and Perry Smith were arrested six weeks after the murders, but Capote does not start at that point; not at the point of the actual slayings for dramatic effect, as many writers would. He starts by describing the comfortable, happy family lives of devout Christian people living in the small town of Holcomb down to the smallest detail. Their daily lives, the aspirations of both old and young, the clinical depression of Bonnie Clutter (the mother, Herbert's wife) are all carefully set down. Carefully woven into the narrative, Capote also writes a dispassionate account of the killers' early childhoods, recording the highlights and events which in retrospect seem shocking in the extreme, but are so meticulously recorded by Capote that they form a non-judgmental picture. It is the juxtaposition made by Capote which means that the reader assesses the situation for themselves. The impoverished and brutal early childhood (some of the cruellest episodes ironically were perpetrated by nuns) of Perry Smith contrasts sharply with the settled happy community who had been devastated by the event. First hand accounts from the residents are included. Most were fearful; all were stunned and confused. Some bent on revenge, some on forgiveness. Every single one in this church-going community seemed to want to do the Right Thing, though they differed as to what that was. The feelings - the stress and deteriorating health of investigators involved - became more intense as the search went on. Truman increases the feeling of suspense as the search continued whilst making us more familiar with the two characters who had perpetrated it, so we are familiar with both Perry Smith's abusive childhood and Dick Hickock's head injuries and possible brain trauma following a car crash in 1950. At no point however does the author comment on such episodes; he remains impartial. He does not really need to. The reader now has ample material to make subtle inferences as to how responsible for their actions these two could be. The actual murders are recorded about halfway through the book, and the following 6 weeks where they were on the run is chronicled as a time when the relationship between the two was breaking down. Here are the thoughts of Dick Hickock, as he envisages setting off on his own, as set down by Capote. "Goodbye, Perry. Dick was sick of him - his harmonica, his aches and ills, his superstitions, the weepy womanly eyes, the nagging, whispering voice. Suspicious, self-righteous, spiteful he was like a wife that must be got rid of." In turn Perry Smith is beginning to wonder why he ever admired Dick Hickock, who takes a delight in running over stray dogs and prefers to steal even when they do have money in their pockets. Both are coming across as extremely damaged personalities, before we ever get to any formal psychiatric analysis.The pair were eventually tracked down by the evidence of a former cell-mate Floyd Wells. Having himself worked for Herbert Clutter he chatted to Dick Hickock about how well off this Methodist family were, giving details of the farmhouse, habits of the family, whether they had a safe etc. When he saw the subsequent use Dick Hickock had made of the information he told the police. (He claimed that although Hickock had stated to him that he would kill all the family, such boasts were so common in prison as to be meaningless. In addition, there was a reward for information.)There was enough other evidence to convict the pair - photographs made of bloody shoe prints which had been invisible to the naked eye, a radio which had been stolen from the house at the time of the attack and subsequently sold ... It seems precious little evidence to present-day readers used to DNA analysis etc, but coupled with the evidence given by the prisoners later, as to where they had disposed of the weapons etc, this was enough at the time.Capote uses the statements made by both prisoners (who were kept separate so that there could be no collaboration) to describe these horrific events. By this clever device the part of the novel which could have been almost unbearable to read takes on a clinical feel. It is never sensationalist or gratuitous. These are the killers' own words.At this point the complex psychological relationship between the men comes more into prominence. We already feel we know these men; we know perhaps some of the reasons why they were able to do what they did. It is becoming poignantly clear that what sparked the actual events was the complex relationship between the two, who in turn relied on each other, admired each other, hated each other ... Here is a quote from Perry Smith to detective Dewey, "Then he says to me as we're heading along the hall towards Nancy's room, "I'm gonna bust that little girl." And I said, "Uh-huh. But you'll have to kill me first"….that's something that I despise. Anybody that can't control themselves sexually." And again, most revealingly as picked up by a psychologist later, "I didn't want to harm the man. I thought he was a very nice gentleman. Soft-spoken. I thought so right up to the moment I cut his throat." And of Dick Hickock, "I meant to call his bluff… I didn't realise what I'd done til I heard the sound. Like somebody drowning…. Dick panicked….I couldn't leave him like he was…. Then I aimed the gun." Dick Hickock also shared this antagonism against his partner, but it was only later when his former cellmate Floyd Wells was called as witness, that Capote says, with a flash of insight he realised he was not as dangerous as Perry. "Suddenly he saw the truth. It was Perry he ought to have silenced." Capote states that Alvin Dewey, the investigator most involved with this case considered that the two versions of the killings were very much alike. But he concluded that the confessions of how and why failed to satisfy his sense of meaningful design. The crime was a psychological accident, virtually an impersonal act. The actual amount of money stolen was between 40 and 50 dollars.The lead up to the trial, as everything else, is carefully documented. The choice of legal representation, of the judge, of the jurors. One potential juror said, when asked his opinion of capital punishment, that he was ordinarily against it, but in this case, no. Yet he was still allocated to the jury. There were no qualified psychiatrists within Garden City, where the trial held. The prosecuting attorney referred to the profession as a "pack of head-healers" sympathetic to the defendants. "Those fellows, they're always worrying over the killers. Never a thought for the victims….. Our own local physicians attend to the matter. It's no great job to find whether a man is insane or an idiot or an imbecile." Whereas the defending counsel said, "Whatever their crime, these men are entitled to examination by persons of training and experience… Psychiatry has matured rapidly in the last twenty years." Listening to both sides, the judge acted strictly within law, appointing 3 Garden City doctors, despite the fact that the unpaid services of a qualified psychiatrist experienced in such cases had been offered.Details from the trial stick in the memory. The testimony of Dick Hickock's father, who was seriously ill at the time (he died months later) but was mocked by the prosecuting attorney for getting the dates of the car accident which led to his son's head injuries and subsequent personality change wrong. One eminent psychiatrist had been called as a defence witness. However the judge only allowed him a yes/no answer to the question, could he could state that the defendants knew the difference between right and wrong. He answered "Yes" in respect of the first one, then was dismissed. No further comment was allowed. Presumably faced with an impossible question to answer in those terms he then answered "No" to the question when put about the second accused. Again, no further elucidation was allowed by the judge, as this was perfectly allowable under Kansas law. Capote goes on to quote the psychiatrist's prepared analysis, after his examinations of the defendants, which presents a much fuller picture. The conditions described after several intensive interviews he had had with the killers use terms which are more familiar to modern readers - organic brain damage from the accident, schizophrenia and dissociative behaviour, where an individual suddenly finds himself destroying some key figure in his past, who may be unclear to him. They may well have been new concepts to the jurors who were in the main farming people, but they were not privy to this crucial information in any case.Although the ending of the trial is a foregone conclusion, the actual execution of Dick Hickock and Perry Smith did not take place for a further 5 years. Capote explains that in the US judicial system it is possible to appeal several times, and that this is common practice. He spends a further part of the novel in describing the characters and crimes committed by various other inmates on Death Row. Interestingly, this part of the novel is not as objective as the rest. Capote's feelings begin to impose more. Perhaps it did not seem as important to be scrupulously impartial as these cases were not crucial to the main text. What it does do for the reader however, is to create a feeling of the suspension of reality - a reflection of the interminable waiting that the prisoners must have felt in their turn.The execution by hanging, the witnesses, the quiet behaviour of the killers is all described. And a final short scene is added which is pure fiction, where Alvin Dewey goes to the graves of the Clutter family and meets one of the children's close friends, now an adult. This I found quite allowable as a coda. It ties up the ends nicely, and I am not sure how else Capote could have done this, without inserting his views in a summing-up, which clearly he did not want to do.This novel is not only ground-breaking but superbly crafted; a pretty near perfect novel. The continual switch between present and past tenses only serves to give a more immediate feel; an edge to the narration. My star rating? Well, I cannot say, I "like it", (3 or 4 stars) but I can say, "It was amazing!" Five stars.
Morrissey once said that Truman Capote wasn't so much a writer than someone who wrote down stuff that happened ("He was funny though". That's the only exact part of the quote I remember, not having 100% conversational recall). I wouldn't ever want to pin down Morrissey to one thing he ever said (the man changes his mind a lot). I think about Truman Capote and his party boy reputation, what he was pinned down to and feel sad there's gotta be an angle to look for at all. For me this book is from a guy who wrote down stuff that happened in a way that I'd have seen it happened. Like that weird feeling you get when you talk about memories with someone else and what they remember isn't what you remembered *at all*. I'll feel lonelier than ever those times. I'd want to have his recall. There's a certain kind of story about outsiders that almost hurt too much for me to live in. These stories make me lose sleep and it is a while before I can pretend to feel normal again. I know too well that feeling of being an outsider, not getting how others seem to know how to breathe so easily. Show me someone who lives completely outside the bounds of society, and I feel scared to relate too much. There's loneliness, and darkness, and same galaxy of me or not, I seize up and get a panic attack. Guilt, shame, empathy, all that stuff. Capote is one of those writers I feel understands this feeling of living in this world. No pretending. Maybe the not pretending keeps darkness from getting bigger. That's what I remember.I don't know if it is over feeling this, or me being brought so low by self-hatred, but In Cold Blood made me empathize to the point of bone deep sorrow, and skin crawling shame. I cannot hear or read about some awful crime against humanity without feeling irrational guilt. I'm too afraid of any darkness that might be in me, though I could not bear to hurt anything ever. How does anyone else do it? What parts in others are the same parts in them? Can before and after hinge on only one action? Capote's book is not merely a true crime account to me. It's a sucker punch to my gut. Or some fancy wrestling move that keeps me from getting past any of it. Maybe a half nelson. I almost grasp it, and then some fast and loose foot work eludes understanding from my unexercised organs...What happened to the Cutter family was beyond horrific, something more sicker and disturbing than I can put name to. [I feel like I should say this first. I've been reading other goodreads reviews that suppose Capote didn't care as much about them. I don't feel in my heart that was true. I don't want it supposed of me that I don't care either. It isn't something I'm good at, conveying the whole feelings I'm capable of. I think Capote did his bit as a human being by the Cutters. /End just-in-case clarification.]It was also heartbreaking what Perry did. The murders were not the only tragedy. Another time, if things could have gone any other way at all, it might not have happened. That moment of never being able to go back from that darkness... the thought kills me inside. I mean, fuck. I don't pity Perry, he had an unending supply of pity for himself (though it gave me plenty uncomfortable pause over the eerie similarities of his background to that of my father's). He wanted Capote to praise him for his great intelligence, looked for anyone else to blame (such as his poor sister. She was not well equipped to deal with that situation. All she could have done was fail him). I'm still so sad that it happened to him. What can I say? I've sorrow to spare what I have endlessly for the Cutter family. He killed himself, too.The point of no return moment... I want to believe it isn't too late for anything else. Was there a time when it wasn't too late?There but for the grace of God go I.... I don't know about God. But I'm afraid of that happening to anyone.Well, yes, it is the choices that one makes. That was a collosal one. There's also a side of me that thinks about mental illness, life changing head injuries, little evils that lead further down the path of no return. I think about lives that were ruined, or never had a chance at all, and I can't bear it any more. There are killers like Dick who have families and some other life they cut off from that sociopathic side. I only felt sorry for his family. I didn't feel there was a humanist part of him that was lost to what they did. I'm too depressed to reread this any time soon (it's been more than a few years). Maybe I'm getting colder (or just older). I don't wanna think about it any more because it hurts too much. Reading Truman Capote's In Cold Blood is the closest I've felt to understanding how something like this happens, if true understanding ultimately eludes me (I ain't that smart). If I could grow a beard I'd grow a Jesus beard and stroke it thoughtfully right now. (Run calming fingers through it if too frustrated by deep thoughts.)Capote was a humanist. Whatever parties he threw, or image he had... Why do people insist on supposing a person can only be one thing? Pinning them down... How do you really know? Memories don't always match up, the stuff that happens.As a side note, the 2005 film Capote pissed me off so much I felt sick over it for days. The idea that Capote was manipulating the situation, or exploiting Perry and Dick, or owed them anything more than that book.... Well, I was really fucking pissed. Fuckers. Ass, eye, ear and nose fuckers (the hanging scene even smelled vile). It was every kind of wrong that I hold as truth. I mean, did they READ In Cold Blood? How could they misunderstand Capote so much? The filmmakers probably did it for a "different" angle. A different angle like tilting the whole world to suggest that everything that is true is something else, in an upside down bizarro world. Bastards. I hatesssss them.
What do You think about In Cold Blood (1994)?
With the glut of crime-related progams - both factual and fictional- on primetime television and the daily bombardment of crime we receive from the news media, you might assume this would be just one more crime story. The fact is, it is a very compelling description, by those involved as well as by Capote, of the brutal murder of a family and of the investigation, trial, and execution of those who committed it. The accounts of the individuals who first found and first investigated the the scene of the murders and the confession of Perry Smith (one of the murderers) are among the most powerfully gripping passages I have ever read.One of Capote's purposes is to raise the question - without offering an answer - of whether one should be held accountable for his actions if he is incapable of controlling himself due to traumas that effect his personality. He shows that the community of pyschiatric professionals is divided on the issue and that the courts at that time tended to assume the individual to be accountable. Having read East of Eden within a month before finishing In Cold Blood, I couldn't help but contrast Steinbeck's view that we each have free will and are therefore responsible for the choices we make between the good and evil that constantly battle within us and the view - toward which Capote seemed to lean - that circumstances can make us incapable of choosing between good and evil thus absolving us of responsibility for our actions.While the book doesn't provide answers to many of the questions it raises, it is one that will keep you up late reading even though you already know the ending.
—Dan Porter
This is the first book that I've ever read for the specific purpose of reviewing it for Goodreads. I've been curious about the book for many years, but for some reason I've always found some reason not to read it. Well in 2011 I ran out of excuses and dived in. First of all let me state that this was a very easy read. It moves along at a good clip and never drags. Well not quite true. It drags somewhat when Capote spends several pages covering Perry Smith's background. There is a touch of infatuation in this section of the book. I now understand why there are those who believe that Capote might have fallen in love with Perry. It's also very obvious that he had no use for Dick Hickock. He describes Dick in very unflattering terms and there is a harshness to that man.On the other hand there is almost a gauziness to Perry. There were times when I felt like I was watching an old black and white movie in which the leading actress is filmed through a filmy material in order to make her softer and more romantic. Now I don't think this detracts from the book. In many ways I think it adds to the book's impact. Perry was a mass murderer and yet he was also a human being (in contrast to say a toaster?) who still connected with Capote. It makes his crime even more awful because we realize he wasn't some kind of mindless killing machine.As a police officer I found the chapters dealing with the actual investigation to be well written. Capote does not over-dramatize the meticulous and (at times) mind numbing work that goes into a criminal investigation. Nor does he portray the detectives as supermen. Actually I was impressed with how balanced Capote was. For a writer who had no experience working the "crime beat" he did yeoman work. I believe that the fact that Capote and the lead investigator became friends helped. Capote was allowed access to the investigation and got to know the K.B.I.(Kansas Bureau of Investigation) agents. They ,in turn, got to know him as well and ,I have no doubt, gave him more background material. For while Capote was known to be a skilful manipulator of people he must of had some likable qualities as well. The detectives ,and others involved with the investigation, seemed to be willing to open up to him. It shows.There is some outstanding details that add to the book's richness. Much is made of the fact that In Cold Blood was the first of what is now called "True Crime". I won't dispute this. But there is more substance in this book. Since it was the first it isn't adhering to a formula. It established the formula.This does not diminish the books place in literature. Yes it was a massive best seller, but just because it was popular doesn't mean it lacks weight. Mainstream popularity should not change the book's place in literary history. Capote was an intelligent man and a pretty good writer. Consequently In Cold Blood is an intelligent and well written book.Finally ,in closing, I do have to agree that the murders lack the punch that would have been delivered to readers fifty years ago. We're all much too used to mass murders occurring on a monthly and weekly basis. Not just in the United States, but all over the world. Some say this takes away from the book. I don't agree. In Cold Blood is now old enough that it has become part of history. In Cold Blood takes the modern reader to an older America. An older America in which many believed they were safe and bad things didn't happen here. Certainly not to nice, middle class families in their homes. In retrospect we know this was a false belief, but many believed it then. Capote gives the reader in 2011 a look into the past, but don't forget that when Capote was writing the book it wasn't in the distant past. It was the present. He couldn't have known (though he might have hoped) that in the end he was giving us a time capsule. This, in the end, is his greatest accomplishment. This was the country that people wanted to believe existed and at the time many thought did.But nothing lasts forever and that includes dreams and illusions. Eventually hard old reality is going to kick open the door. By the late fifties that cherished dream was starting to fade. This book was in on the beginning of it and as a result is a valuable documentation of that period.
—Checkman
Capote paints perfect pictures of every character. You can almost feel them breathing right beside you. Their thoughts, their mannerisms, their physique, their psyche, etc. Bravo.He painstakingly describes every detail—with thousands of commas and dashes preceding thousands of commas and dashes—his keen sense of observation (and exaggeration) is both impressive and tiring at the same time. I felt that Truman probably held the details of every interview close to his heart hence a lot of unnecessary banter between town-folk, relatives and even very minor characters were not omitted. The conversations were crucial, but somewhat too plenty.I couldn't help but think of one of Disney's famous editing principles while reading this book: If it's not important in the telling of the story, cut it out. Of course, this is way beyond the family-oriented themes good ol' Walt implemented. It's gruesome, shocking and certainly deserves the accolade of the "true-crime" genre.I love how Capote matter-of-factly drops sentences that depict the horror of the crime done after a rather mundane recollection of events. "I slit his throat." is one. Narratives of Nancy, Sue, Al Dewey stood out, perhaps because they had a natural flow to the story-telling and did not sound like a police report. Mrs. Kidwell's dream, though briefly described and wildly unbelievable, was haunting.Now let me tell you why I am not impressed. My biggest question is: Would I have enjoyed this book if I didn't know that it was real? Will it stand up on its own minus the decades of controversy around it?The answer lies in the text itself. The book is obviously a novelized transcript of interviews: if it isn't, then it certainly felt like it was. Truman Capote "filled in the blanks" with suppositions, questionable truths, and fictional drama—that wouldn't be an issue had he not boldly claimed his work to be "non-fiction".It is my belief that Truman wanted to shock the mainstream with his empathic crusade for the murderers. Without question, he had an affinity for Perry and Judge Tate, and a clear distaste for Dick. Perhaps during the interviews, Hickok was appalled by Truman's nosy intrusions and homosexuality—that's just a guess—while Smith was more accommodating.I am not sure if I am simply desensitized by the countless crime books, tv shows and movies I've seen. But I did not feel an ounce of pity towards the criminals. Things would have probably been different if I had read this in the 60s or 70s when coverage of crimes like these were bold and anti-Hollywood, therefore "cool".Forgive my natural tendency to reject what's popular...for what most claim to be "a really great novel". I just had too many "Oh c'mon, how could you (Capote) have been there to know that?" moments to merit praise. Based on further research, many of the characters deny that many events in the book (Mrs. Meir having a picnic with Perry in jail for one) really happened.Had this been categorized as a tale based on true events, then I would have given it double the stars. If you say this story is true, then I'll be doggoned if pertinent details were fabricated just to express that "creative license". It doesn't only not help in the telling of the story, it just makes the story something else entirely—a fictional one.
—Reev Robledo
