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.