God Grew Tired of Non-Fiction Books.

Hello there, Book-Clubbers!

Jane invited me to join ages ago and I actually finished this book about three months ago and was waiting for someone else to post so as not to look like a loser, but my memory of the book is starting to fade so I shall forge ahead blindly. Fortunately I made some badly-worded notations in my diary to refresh my memory.

So. God Grew Tired of Us by John Bul Dau. I did not enjoy this book. To be fair, I have an aggressive distaste for non-fiction (particularly memoirs), encouraged by years of tedious encounters with badly written "true stories" and autobiographies. My lack of enjoyment, however, does not suggest that the story therein was not remarkable and moving. Far from it. The simple fact that I got through a non-fiction book is testament to the power of the narrative.

This book made me painfully aware of my complete lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs, particularly in Africa. I admit I knew nothing about Sudan. That is, zero. Knew nothing about Sudanese politics, economics, history... anything... except that there was some serious strife going on and lots of hungry people. And I knew there were lots of Sudanees refugees in Australia and America- but had no comprehension of the absolutely overwhelming number of displaced persons. So yeah, I was shamefully ignorant of the civil war and resulting conditions in Sudan.

I was moved by the sheer scale of the evacuation from Southern Sudan. The story is very brave. John Bul Dau was very frank, which is quite profound considering the history of personal suffering he is retelling. The level of suffering was quite beyond my capacity to comprehend- being so utterly removed from anything I have ever experienced. However, it was the story itself, and the strength and determination of the author, which I found moving- and not the way it was written. Memoirs and autobiographies are often written by people who are not writers, or have only just begun writing. Thus, I often find the language stilted, stale and uninventive. I did find that to be the case with this story, making the reading experience tedious at times.

I dislike the standard memoir P.O.V, which is usually first peron, past tense. Sentences are often begun with, "I remember when we..." or, "Sometimes we would...". I find this focalisation distracting and alienating. I think immediacy in tense creates a better connection with the reader and allows for greater emotional investment in the narrative. I also think specifity in events is important. I want a specific image created for me. The book often gave accounts of a typical routine the lost boys had, say, week to week in the Kakuma Camp. Phrases like, "We usually ate around this time..." and "We usually did so-and-so in the morning" do nothing for me. I want descriptive, specific, immediate contact with detailed moments and characters, because that will make me connect, invest, relate and empathise. I find this to be a massive issue with non-fiction.

People think that a true story can not be descriptively or imaginatively told because it is "factual". This is a tragic assumption. I dislike the binary opposition between fiction and non-fiction anyway (but that is a whole other argument). Basically, I found the lack of interesting, original or skilled narrative practice in this book to be a real shame. I think this story needs to be told, and the author certainly felt so too. But I'm not necessarily convinced that a written memoir is the best vehicle, particular for someone that is not a writer. I am interested to see the documentary of the same name, as I think film is often a more visceral, immediate and thus more appropriate medium for memoir.

Italics and recounts = YUCK. Hated all that stuff. Gripes about the style of writing aside, I was massively educated. Politically and culturally I found it quite challenging. I struggled a bit with the christian (good) vs muslim (bad) binary that was going on, and found the pro-war on terror stuff interesting. Annoyed to be once again reading a book from the perspective of a man in a christian, patriarchal society where women have no voice. What happened to the Lost Girls? Probably too horrific to print. I know this was not the story he was telling, but still. Where are all those lost women?

All the stuff about September 11 was a little unsettling. I found the political agenda of the book a bit unclear. There is a passage towards the end where he discusses Southern Sudan and America being allies against the Middle East. I am a bit tired of the god/war/religion/revenge angle, and wish there was a bit more of the tolerance/acceptance/communication/relationship-building angle happening. But then. I haven't suffered in a civil war. So I guess that kind of dwarfs my argument into insignificance.

The name-dropping and thank you list at the end were annoying. It was just a recount of everyone that helped him and famous people who gave him money, which was nice I guess, but I found it pointless. I think mentioning them in the story is thank you enough. And I got sick of the christian propaganda about how amazing the church was and how awesome and kind and inclusive and helpful and accepting the christians were and blah blah blah. Ok. We get the point.

Interesting. Educating. But didn't enjoy it. I'll hire the doco and get back to you.

-Rabbit

Not as good as television's 'Secret Valley'...

Given the fact that I had already written this book off as dull and ah-booooo-ring, I was mildly impressed. It was better than I predicted. I give this book one star on the Jess Enjoyment Scale, with a slightly higher two stars on the General Literary Critique scale. It has a boredom factor of 8/10.

I have found this book a hard one to critique. I have carried with me since childhood a resounding disinterest for Australian stories, across all artistic arenas. Predictably, this characteristic has been the subject of contempt from many of my peers. I have always found it hard to engage with stories of my own country's history/people; they don't capture my imagination to the fine degree to which I have become accustomed. I blame television.
So I was totally uninterested by the premise of Secret River, and was really, really not looking forward to reading it. As it turned out, I did find it quite a chore and I wouldn't have gotten very far if not for bookclub (then again, I wouldn't have gone anywhere near it if not for bookclub). However, I did enjoy it a bit more than I thought I would; though still not much. I have been dreading this post as it seems everyone else totally dug Secret River. So I am expecting indignant replies. But here's to honesty.

The rave reviews on the cover seem largely wack to me. 'Unforgettable' - no. 'Overwhelmingly Beautiful' - no. 'Breathtaking' - hell no. I would agree that it was 'Subtle and Satisfying' though. I liked Grenville's style of prose and I appreciated having a traditional story arc for once, with some actual dramatic tension and a conclusive ending. I thought the humour and compassion with which Grenville treated her characters was effective. I liked the way Thornhill was allowed to grow and develop as a character, without forced judgement from the writer. The relationship between Thornhill and his wife was quite lovely, and I liked Thornhill's appreciation of his wife as she matured from a young sprite into middle-age. In the days before divorce and plastic surgery, relationships were for life and you didn't go off someone when they got fat and started growing hair where there was no hair before. Although, we've all seen the English, there's not really such a thing as 'trading up' over there, what with all the bad teeth and the 'freshen yer drink, guv'na?'.

I also thought the dialogue between the Thornhills and the Aboriginal people was pretty hi-larious - giving them names like Saucy Polly and holding one-sided conversations involving the word 'bugger'. You can sense the fear underneath the bravado, with Thornhill putting on a show for his wife and kids.

I also liked the way everyone spoke like Alf from Home & Away.

So all up, a dreary read with some pleasant interludes.

A Great Story

My apologies if i repeat ideas already covered by others..have had this saved as a draft for a while.... I definitely thoroughly enjoyed this book. I felt quite refreshed to read a relatively simple story with a beginnning, middle and end and I found the subject completely intriguing as I've never given much thought to the way the convict system worked and the challenges that faced those sent to Australia. The language of Kate Grenville was soothing and poetic and yet simple and painfully poignant in parts. In my head and heart Wil remained 'lost' throughout the story from the beginning feeling overshadowed by the other William Thornhills in his life until the end where he remained feeling empty and without a home.

I agree that the interaction between Wil and his 'slaves' was intriguing and gave an insight into Wil's character - a wish for power and prestige but not really having the know how to consistently present his authority. I loved the description of the first time he discovered he was 'strolling' after an early power struggle with Dan, having the feeling of power wash over him to allow him to feel as a gentleman would in London. However he could never really hold his authority as in the end it was Dan who pushed him into the final attack by convincing him that Sal would leave unless he "got rid of the blacks". My only criticism is that i suddenly felt detached from the story as the last chapter 'Thornhill's Place' began, time had passed and whereas in the previous parts of the story I felt that the story had few gaps, now I felt that i didn't completely understand how the Thornhills had achieved such wealth and status, is that just the way it happened, that the longer you stayed in Australia the more senior you became in the community? And I wondered how much of Wil's allowing the use of his boat helped to 'buy' some of the prestige that he later enjoyed. But maybe that was just a tactic of Grenville, to allow the reader to detach from the characters that i felt i knew quite well, and allow the story to end.

I also found the descriptions of Wil's verbal interactions with the Aborigines rather amusing and well described, maybe because i have similar difficulties communicating with some of my students and have found myself nodding and smiling to utterances that i cant fully decipher. I felt that the confusion and frustration that occurs when people can not understand each other to be fascinating in the sense that often we construct our views of what people say to fit what we think they would be saying...anyone who has spent some time in a foreign country will agree that you can often have a 'conversation' with someone and then later realise that perhaps they didn't really say what you thought, and didn't necessarily understand as well as you originally beleived.

I guess overall, i found the book totally enjoyable as well as provoking thought about 'big' issues but without being contrived or pretentious, really just presenting a story without any opinion.

Its exciting to see the superfriends blog growing and growing and judging by the previous bloviations you are all doing better than me at explaining your opinions when writing... Maybe its been too long since i've been at uni and too much time conversing with under 5's but i'm really struggling with writing my ideas!

I've written too much!

I really enjoyed this book. Grenville's writing is simple but very evocative and the place that she created stayed with me vividly. I think this story was interesting and challenging because she chose not to write from the point of view of the original inhabitants but from that of the settlers. It would have been easy and perhaps, dull, to write of the horrors of colonialism from the point of view of the Indigenous people (who in dominant Left discourse, are the 'oppressed' in Australian history). But instead she explored the notion of 'oppressed' in multiple sites- the 'natives' oppressed by the colonialists but also the convicts oppressed by the British class system and then the ex-convicts subjugation of the newly arrived convicts. Thornhill realised very early on, in his quest to establish a home in this foreign country, that in in order to have money, power and status, someone has to be below you. And the 'natives' did not count. So we see him embark upon a master and servant relationship with his two lads with little empathy for their loss of freedom.

Thornhill was no doubt a product of his time- the dominant view being that Aboriginal people belonged to the animal kingdom. And even though we get glimpses that he observes things which may in fact challenge this common view (ie their survival skills in the Australian context are far superior), he doesn't allow himself to explore these ideas fully as it would then force him to admit that perhaps his greatest dreams of carving out a home are actually illegitimate. This made me wonder what dominant view we all currently buy into because it is convenient and suits our purposes, but that history will not look kindly on us for. Or even some popular 'truth' that we believe because everyone else does but that future generations will see it as proof of our backwardness. This isn't meant to excuse Thornhill and the rest, but the power of a dominant discourse, such as Aboriginal people= flora and fauna , is something that is hard to fully fathom 200 years later. It's like at the moment we are fully of the belief that apes are not human beings and do not deserve rights at the expense of humans- but what if this was found to be untrue at a later date? Does that mean that everyone who complicitly supported animal testing is in fact a murderer and/or a violator of human rights? If the powers that be, are assuring us that apes aren't humans then doesn't that remove some of our culpability? Complex and controversial questions I know....

Later in the story, Thornhill continues to turn a blind eye to a growing level of atrocities as he has nothing to gain and quite alot to lose by making a stand. Eerily, there was alot in Thornhill that I could relate to- his desire to better himself and his family's station in life. And maybe that is the quiet horror in this story, the fact that very ordinary people with very ordinary desires will be part of evil if they stand to benefit. Grenville painted a very human picture of Thornhill- unremarkable in many ways yet as Paul said, sympathetic. Ultimately, Thornhill was a 'success', he got his land and his wealth and in the background remained the dispossessed Aboriginal people. And I suppose this is Australia's history, that we all have so much only because it has come at others' expense.

Secret's out

With so many people recommending I read The Secret River it is unsurprising I enjoyed the book as much as I did. But, at the risk of going overboard and exposing myself to the harsh ridicule of cynical peers, I think the book was a profound and compelling tale, destined to attain the status of Australian classic (calling here for lists of people’s top 5 Australian novels). Gita, being in this instance an aforementioned cynical peer, would no doubt argue that my love of the story has as much to do with my parochial attachment to this country’s history than the novel’s inherent qualities, but I think it goes beyond that. In The Secret River, Grenville manages to explore complex themes and issues (the idea of ‘home’, loss and grief, difference, hierarchies, group mentality etc) using a fast-paced, intriguing plot, believably simple yet descriptive language and realistic, well developed, characters.

One of the more interesting aspects of the novel was the detailed exploration of human agency, the idea of collective vs individual guilt/blame and the corresponding ethical questions. At what point does a person (ie Wil), shipped off for the term of his natural life to a harsh and exotic land, become responsible for his imposition and detrimental impact on the inhabitants and eco-system? At what point is he (Wil again) in control of his actions and able to exercise agency? When does justifiable ignorance become negligence and when does it go beyond wilful negligence and become active malfeasance?

I found it a particularly poignant moment when Wil went to collect ‘his’ convicts from the wharf only to feel the weight of his own story come crushing down on him as his dishevelled and contemptible superior treated him with such blatant disdain. With his servants, Wil then opts for the authoritarian approach insisting on the formal ‘Mr’ and, from an ethical point of view, goes downhill rapidly. He enjoys the power but in many ways the decision was a spur-of-the-moment tactic: How he had seen others behave, the ‘normal’ way of doing things etc. Wil’s motives in the book are, like others’, invariably multifaceted and rarely singular with justifications tending to follow rather than precede actions. As is written somewhere, with one foot heading down the wrong path it is easier to keep going than to admit defeat and start again. So, beginning with passive complicity Wil eventually joins in the mass murder with men he largely despises, and yet despite this I never really lost sympathy for the Thornhills. The impression is carried throughout that he just did what he thought neccessary and suffered his own psychological consequences in silence. And that’s the tension: he’s both the hero and the villain and not very good at either.

more housekeeping...

We've ordered God Grew Tired of Us and the Jess/Geet/Paul house have got hold of a copy of Secret River. Should we aim to be finished with the posting by the end of April?

It is also probably a good idea to stay a book ahead of ourselves so we can 'order in' or, for the more financially pressured, save up for, or scrounge a copy of, the book. So the first person (who hasn't previously chosen) that posts on Secret River can pick the book after Jane's (?)

Raring to go... as soon as I have enough money in my bank account to buy the books!

I like Jane's suggestion... let's order our copies of her book now and in the meantime read The Secret River. Wooh! Yeah! I'm so happy - Lilian's Story was such an uplifting book. Can't wait!

Not that books have to be all fun and games. And I think it's a good idea to read The Secret River sooner rather than later while it's still a bit hot.

New Book continued

Hi all,
I actually already have 'God Grew Tired of Us' - i got it through amazon a while ago...
I'm happy to read Secret River though for now and do my book next if everyone is OK with that??

next book

Hi Super friends, Just called a local book store and apparently God Grew Tired of Us has not yet been released and will come out initially in hardback for about $45. I suppose we could order over amazon et al but it will take time. Does anyone have alternative information and if not should we try a more accessible book? Maybe book this one in for next time? Just a thought...

PS - i finally finished In Cold Blood this weekend past and believe the book would be more appropriately titled In Minute Detail. As Gita pointed out, the narrator is conspicuously absent from the story. This becomes especially annoying towards the end when he (Truman Capote) becomes one of the most important people in the protagonists' lives (particularly for Perry who had no other regular visitors).

Good work Jane non-fiction gets my thumbs up.

And the new book is...

Well sorry to say Nick but the book i'd really like to read is a memoir but i'm pretty sure its written with a narrative style...

Its 'God Grew Tired Of Us' by John Bul Dau (published through National Geographic Society)
which is a memoir of a boy from the Sudan who eventaully gets to america and university. I read an excerpt from it in National Geographic mag a few months ago and it really captured me...

Its a new release and has been made into a movie (it won awards at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival)
Well I hope its easy to get a hold of and you enjoy it!
I'll say that we should be aiming towards the end of April to begin comments...
Happy Reading!

New Book

Super friends,
Please excuse me. I haven't read In Cold Blood, I've just been too busy the last couple of months. However, I am pleased to see the level of response on superfriends and I'm itching to get started on the next book. Go Jane!

By the way, could we ban all non-fiction books?

Nick

Umm, mistaken identity

The post below was mine but I was somehow logged in as Paul. Just for the record.

new book

yep, I think Jane should go ahead and pick a book and then we rotate the book choosing thereafter, depending on who first posts and who hasn't had a recent go....I think we should also allow at least 6 weeks to read the book. I was going to suggest 8 weeks so we have time to read other books but it will naturally stretch out anyway I suppose. Go for gold Jane....

Re: new book

Just wanted to announce that I hereby declare my intentions to once again be the first person to blog on Jane's book choice, solely in order to not have to read a book about revolutionary movements in latin america. game on, bitches!!

New Book?

I have been wanting to read Secret River for a while if anyone is interested in that? I have had many a recommendation. But democracy might not be the best way to work this. I am happy with Jane chosing the next book and then maybe the first person to post gets to chose the following one...

Also interested in reading Communism: a love story, something by Thomas Pynchon or a book about revolutionary movements in latin america (i've seen a few that look good from AK Press).

Should this be a comment attached to Jane's last post?

New Book?

Well having been a slow start to the book club and now that we all except Els (last i heard she hadn't started it) have posted i thought i'd suggest that we move on to the next book....
Figured that we can still comment about In Cold Blood over the next week or two while we go about getting the next book and then i suggest 5-6 weeks of reading time??

I also have a book i'd like to suggest if there are no objections??

Let me know if you are ready for the next book by making a comment on this post..

What a relief!

Well first i am totally relieved to have finally finished it! I dont know whether it was because i kept reading it when i was tired or otherwise but I'm sorry to say i found the last quarter of the book really boring! While i'm not totally in agreeance with Jess I found that the ending really dragged out and had quite a few aspects that really irritated me...Overall i decided that i think the story of Capote writing the book was more interesting than the story itself. While i haven't seen any of the movies about Capote himself i think its an interesting concept that he went to Holcomb before the murders were actually solved to write the story and like Gita i would have liked to have heard more of his "voice" , discussing how he sought out the people in the town and perhaps even their reactions to him. Was he just part of the problem that the town complained about, wanting to move on etc and get on with their lives. I know if a family i was close to had been murdered, having a writer in the town pursuing a 'story' would have been pretty trying. I also would like to know Perry and Dick's feelings towards Capote...did the fact he was writing a book about them give them a sense of immortality and fame that they knew would go on after they were executed??

I found the descriptions of Perry and Dick's lives moderately interesting, to me Dick seemed like so much more the 'bad guy' whereas i guess Perry was more scary in a sneaky kind of way. The type of person you might have a reasonably normal conversation before finding out he had just murdered someone...maybe thats what led to my nightmare of him hacking someone to pieces on my front porch! I did however find the descriptions from the psychologists a bit dull and almost as if it was from a psychology text book (unloved child--not given boundaries and role models-- lacks social skills--hurts animals--kills people) but maybe, as has been said by you all, that our views on violence and so different to when this all happened, we all have a greater understanding of what may lead people to react in such a way and that 'modern day murders' whether real or on the tele contain more twists and depth and therefore this story doesn't capture our attention....

I'm finding it really hard to write my ideas...its much easier chatting and bouncing ideas off one another but i think it's totally sweet that you've all posted!! Cheers to the superfriends!!

Came Good in the End

Whilst my first impressions of the book aligned with Jess' synopsis- it failed to engage me- somewhere around the middle I got really into it! I'm not sure if my failure to engage was due to the story itself or the way in which I had been reading it-in an ad hoc, divided attention sort of way. Anyway, I began to become genuinely interested in these characters of Dick & Perry, particularly their motivations. And I guess this is what drew me in to the story, as Pete found too- the exploration of these guys' psychology(ies). Which I found intriguing. How is it that the majority of the population finds senseless murder repulsive whilst some individuals can not only undertake said acts but not experience guilt/remorse/self-disgust? Its hardly a new query I know, but I thought Capote's exploration of this theme was done really quite well as was his exploration of the morality of capital punishment.

I found Dick's comments near the end very interesting, about not being against capital punishment, that in fact he supported people's right to get revenge- he was just against the idea of himself being killed (from the point of view of self-preservation, not any claimed innocence). To me, this captured the world view of both Perry & Dick who failed to ever display any notions of empathy towards others yet had infinite wells of understanding towards themselves. The statement was also brutally honest- Dick wasn't going to say he was against state murder in an attempt to gain the moral high ground but obviously had no desire to die himself and saw this view as logical and acceptable. He seemed to acknowledge there is a moral code ( murder is wrong & therefore avenging deaths is ok) but didn't feel any need to obey this moral code or a duty to accept punishment as a result of transgressing it. Self-interest all the way and a pathological ability to put your own whims, needs and flippant desires above everything else....

And on the writing. Well, I think this kind of storytelling, weaving perspectives from various characters, painting a strong sense of place whilst following a sequence of chronological events is much harder than it appears. In fact, I think telling a story like this requires considerable skill. I don't agree with Paul about Capote's voice being condescending at all. Having seen the film (and in light of the title), I was expecting to find Capote's tone to be a tad sensational and maybe expoitative too. But I actually thought that he displayed a fair amount of understanding and sympathy towards the lads, painting them to be human without minimsing what they had done. He devoted alot of narrative to Perry's early life experiences etc. One thing that I found curious though was Capote as 'nuetral observer,' he never placed himself in the story that was Dick & Perry's life, despite being a significant figure in their last years in jail. However, I think the technique of the author declaring their own positioning and relationship to subject, is perhaps a po-mo era device?

Yep, well I have to say I ended up being pleasantly surprised by this modest book. But then I've always been a bit of a voyuer, hence my appetite for reality TV & doco's. The drawcard for me was definitely the psychological study of the two main characters and their impossible lack of conscience.

While I agree with a substantial portion of Pete’s poignant points, I tend to adopt Jess’s reflection of the whole. Maybe it is because the merit of the work is in the technical aspects. The “attention to detail with regards to the documentation of the recollections and impressions of those involved in the case,” which like you say, Pete, offers insight, not so much through Capote’s own editorialising but through the collective ‘wisdom’ of those eyewitnesses involved to varying degrees. Also, as Pete positively posits, the sense of place and time is a substantial strength of Capote’s and there was a strong sense of the (pending?) change as well. A loss of innocence story, maybe. I am yet to get to the end (sorry) but the “increase in motiveless violent crime” is a pretty tired narrative with dubious credentials. I think it stems more from nostalgia than reality and changes in the way we define, and record, violent crimes.

I found it hard to pinpoint my dissatisfaction. One recurring thought though, was that of Capote’s voice: the slick condescension of the hubristic cosmopolitan literati. But perhaps in this I am swayed more by the character depicted recently on screen than the words in the novel. Perhaps, as Jess suggests, it is our desensitisation to the depiction of violence or the increase of sophistication in regards to style and structure (if not content and language) that has occurred since the book was first published. Maybe, though, just maybe, it was actually a fairly boring tale, well written but missing a sufficiently meaty plot line to engage me.

Really Quite Liked It

Yep, top work on the blog Jane. The Superfriends have risen, like a many headed phoenix from their own ashes!
I finished the book quite a while ago but was trying to put off publishing until we were all up to speed. I'm starting to worry about forgetting too much though.
Not that I found the book forgettable. Shit Jess, I really wasn't expecting that kind of reaction. I've read quite a few other true crime stories about sick fucks alot more depraved than old Dick and Perry, and found them all to be dry and boring (maybe with the exception of the works of that modern day bard, Mark "Chopper" Read), but In Cold Blood I liked.
I thought that Capote's attention to detail with regards to the documentation of the recollections and impressions of those involved in the case, enabled me to gradually make inferences concerning the nature of the protagonists' characters, which I think ultimately painted a more vivid and interesting picture than if he had more explicitly described their personalities. The people involved, though some more than others, were real to me.
Capote's portrayal of the psychological dynamic between Perry and Dick was effective and for me, what made the story as interesting as it was. I've always found the idea that people incapable of committing attrocities individually can do so with others scary. Or just the idea of tandem/group murder or rape in general: the fact that some sort of consensus to commit something like that can be reached is frightening to me.
The other thing I think Capote gave a real sense of was the era in which the events took place. Or should I say the cusp of an era. At times I felt as if I was reading of a time much further back than 50 years. The patriarchal Clutters with their principled methodist lifestyle, in fact most of Western Kansas seemed to me to belong long ago, but this was contrasted with the more contemporary feel of the adventures of Dick and Perry. I felt this conveyed the feel of societal change that may have been evident with the sixties just around the corner. This idea of change goes complements the increasing prevalence in motiveless violent crime that Capote reports later in the book and that I associate more with the present day, and I like the way he highlights this increase with descriptions of the other psychos on death row.
I didn't know anything about the supposed homoeroticism in this book. I agree with Jess, that it seems like a real fucking stretch, like people trying to talk gayness into starwars. Rubbish.
Does anyone know the specifics of why such controversy and banning? I don't really get it.
Truman Capote and Harper Lee: both good names.

Look forward to your thoughts.

Colour me disappointed!

DUDES!
Now we are truly superfriends. Props to Jane for doing stuff!!

Anyhoo, I may be the only one who has finished In Cold Blood; I was over-eager as I had wanted to read it for ages. Imagine my dismay to find it boring and crap! I kept thinking it was going to get exciting so I kept reading but it never did get exciting. Just more boring.

I figure I must be missing something? It's widely viewed as a modern literary masterpiece, so I'm looking forward to hearing what you guys have to say; maybe there's some awesome grand narrative I'm overlooking or some such. As far as I'm concerned, Capote's style of writing was unremarkable, if a little irritating with the dialogue style. Which was upsetting as I'd had my heart set on loving the book and author, being as I am somewhat favourable toward American popular culture. Hmmm...

I never got enough of a sense of the protagonists' actual characters to invest myself in their story. I figured the killers would be shown in a sympathetic light (ala recent films about American school shootings), hence all the controversy and hoo-ha, but I didn't have any feelings about them either way. They were just two dumb guys who killed some people for no real reason, drove around for a bit calling each other 'honey', then went to prison and died. The crime itself was definitely 'cold-blooded' and for that reason fascinating, but I was hoping for a little more thrills and gore, frankly. I mean, this book was banned in several states! Why? Maybe said States took a particularly strict stance on forgettable literature. I was also expecting there to be more of a homoerotic undertone to the whole shenanigans, as I had heard this theme mentioned before. But it was a bit of a stretch to assume the dudes were jonesing for each other, seeing as how they.... weren't. Probably everyone called each other 'honey' in those days (or at least Capote called everyone 'honey'; rumour has it he was a little sly, if you get my drift....). If you ask me, the 'homoeroticism' readings are just a way for literary critics to retrospectively inject some excitement into the text. The most interesting part of the whole book was when Capote listed some of the crimes comitted by one of the other inmates of the prison; that guy sounded truly nuts and I would have much rather read his story.

So what's the deal? Am I really so desensitized to violence and evil that I can't appreciate the true genius of In Cold Blood? Have 50 years of shock-value media made the difference between masterpiece and boooo-ring? Is the fact that nobody else is anywhere near finishing the book an indication of support for my views? If you ask me, this book is a prime example of a text that nobody really likes but everyone says is awesome in order to look smart and interesting, much like Eternity and a Day, the most long and boring film ever made.

I look forward to your comments and am open to new and exciting theories!!
10-4

WELCOME!!

WELCOME to our internationally accessible book club!

This site is for us to discuss our latest reads and allow a meeting of minds from wherever we may all be living!
Each book will be given a time frame for reading and then we can comment/discuss/argue/question what we have read.
You can choose to either make your own post (which is super easy) or comment on someone else's post.