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.
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
Monday, 19 February 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, 14 February 2007
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.
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.
Friday, 2 February 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
