so...

ok, i made this blog something like a year and a half ago and it was used for my AP english language class because my teacher was going for his masters and it was used as a project of his. now i'm using it again as a means to commuicate on the podcasting blogs that i listen to, if you want, add my on myspace cause i use that more often.

oh the facts!

one thing that does make this whole endeavour much easier is when capote uses quotation marks on things like testimony, letters, and interview with the people in the town of Holcomb. He seems to have thoroughly investigated this crime and everything surrounding it as well. He has gotten interviews or at least responses from several people involved with the case, such as the chief investigator for that region as well as people like the twon postmistress. All of these factual tidbits are not presented as "he/she told me" but rather in a fluid stylistic way that melds with the rest of capote's writing, yet the reader is still given enough information to know that what is being said, is basically what was said, at least the important parts anyway.

also, the letters. luck for capote and the reader [and probably the investigators as well,] perry was very much into correspondence and had a wealth of letters on him in his possesions. because of this, we really can get word-for-for truth. capote obtained letters from former prison mates of perry as well as letters from dick to perry and others. perhaps much of the quoted sporatic dialouge that capote incorporates was found in these letters, because these words cannot be unsaid.

look at the presentation

basically, i've realized i should have picked a different focus at this point. maybe if i had a lot of time on my hands i could have gone through and done well with this one, but in reality, it just takes too damn long to do these tryiing to decipher fact from fiction. i would have tried finishing these last night, but i got caught up with graduation and then didn't get home until very late. i'm not giving myseld an excuse, because i'm a lazy bum regardless, but still. just to let you know why it wasn't done sooner like last night.

many times because we can never be really sure about what is real and what isn't, we have to think about ways we present things ourselves. however, we have to give the author a little more trust than we have because he is supposed to be portraying a real event. when capote states that "dick told perry" i'm am going to assume that these details, although dialouge, are most likely realistic. they were probably gained through testimony or intereview. however, when capote delves into long conversations between the two, we must begin to understand that every word cannot possibly have been said by our killers.

whoa

seriously, i could probably do this post right now, but i'm going to get some sleep on Mr. Wells's advice. this entry should be posted before 5 o'clock tomorrow. sorry for the delay, at least i got the other two up. why must AP exams be next week back to back for me.

16-30

Okay, straight to the point. Some of the first dialogue Capote puts into the story is from Dick to Perry on page 15, and the most interesting part of the short dialogue is that Capote has Dick calling Perry ‘Honey’. What exactly is he trying to imply with this term of endearment? Was there in fact more to the relationship of the killers than there seems on the surface, or does Capote say this as a result of his intrigue with Perry? I’ll leave the homosexual tendency deciphering to j.unk, but actually reading this along with the rest of the dialogue between the two will prove to be an interesting aspect of the most fictional part of In Cold Blood.
Yet again we have the parenthesis. This time on page 16, in reference to something Dick said again. It reminds me of the first because it gives information on something that happened between Dick and Perry, but things that really don’t add much to the actual facts on the murder. It seems that perhaps this information may have been gained through interviews because if the murderers had been interviewed, some of the only information they would feel comfortable divulging would be in fact, information that in no way hinted at the murder or motives.

As chapter’s change, we move from the killers to the killed. Much more dialogue is incorporated into these chapters and even so, there is much truth to it. I would have to believe that from actual testimonial, Capote took the main points and mildly elaborated on it in order to make the dialogue more narrative. Another interesting fact is that so far, no dialogue has occurred where only the Clutter’s where present; each time there was someone in the room or another outside person with whom the conversation was held.

There is still more dialogue between Dick and Perry that is clearly fiction because they never testified to this extent. Not only this, but there is more background information Mrs. Clutter and then more dialogue that must be mostly fact. I find it most interesting that even though what Capote is saying is real, you can clearly hear his voice in his diction [“she had not been spoiled but spared, led to suppose that life was a series of agreeable events”]. This along with his literary techniques [“it lingered like a cloud that might rain or might not.”]

CUNNILINGUS; a.k.a. pgs. 1-16

Prior to page 14, all writing was a realistic description of the town of Holcomb and its inhabitants (including the Clutters). However, Capote could have never met the Clutters and so even this description is not a primary source. The first thing I have to learn while reading this is that not everything is real and there truly is no way to fully understand fact from fiction. We can only discern so much as we are given and Capote is in no way a lacking writer. His skill gives his story telling a great fluid feeling that only adds to my task at hand because as any good writer, storyteller, or liar for that matter, knows that the key to believability is a congruous story with no seams that can easily rip apart the fibers of the tale they are telling.

Now to get on with the real assignment; the first notes I made where on page 14 when Capote compared Herb Clutter’s morning eating habits to those of Perry Smith. This comparison serves to connect the killer to the victim with a real detail about the two. One reoccurring stylistic trait of Capote’s that is only serving to confuse me more is his use of parenthesis. His first occurs on page 14 and confuses me because the information within is not startlingly fact nor fiction. He includes very specific detail along with dialogue which makes me believe that although it may be based on research, that is it probably more creative writing than reality. However, I have read up to part II: “Persons Unknown” and Capote continues with the occasional use of parenthesis and it seems that every time I must reevaluate its credibility.

Because I’m nearing the word requirement I’m going to delve into one more aspect and cut the pages covered short, I’m sure I will make up for this because there are many pages with only dialogue to decipher. Character Description. When Capote is describing Smith’s physical demeanor, diction plays a huge part in realizing that although Smith is a murderer, he seems to be intrigued by him. He could have easily said “He had small feet and wore boots and was of short stature.” Instead he decided to elaborate with details and similies to describe Smith’s appearance which help to create a great starting point to help with my separation because I now know that any events with Smith directly involved may be distorted with Capote’s artistic license.

FOCUS [as if i had any]

So, this In Cold Blood book, yeah, I'll be honest, I'm just reading it like any other book I'd normally read. But since we need to find some focus for the purpose of group work [yet another idea i totally oppose like bush opposes gay rights] i finally figured one out. After researching the real murders, i want to try to discern fact from fiction in this book. Capote probably already has a biased opinion if i is true that he was interested in Smith, but he also adds theamatic elements that could never be known from court record and even interviews alone. Hopefully this focus doesn't suck, but it probably will.