• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Truman Capote: In Cold Blood

mehastings

Active Member
July 2006 Book of the Month

FROM THE PUBLISHER
On November 15, 1959, in the small town of Holcomb, Kansas, four members of the Clutter family were savagely murdered by blasts from a shotgun held a few inches from their faces. There was no apparent motive for the crime, and there were almost no clues.

Five years, four months and twenty-nine days later, on April 14, 1965, Richard Eugene Hickock, aged thirty-three, and Perry Edward Smith, aged thirty-six, were hanged from the crime on a gallows in a warehouse in the Kansas State Penitentiary in Lansing, Kansa.

In Cold Blood is the story of the lives and deaths of these six people. It has already been hailed as a masterpiece.
 
Seems I'm the first one at bat. I wish my memory of the book was stronger, but here goes...

I enjoyed it. More so than I expected, since I rarely read books of this genre. I'm glad Capote didn't give us "just the facts", because I probably would have lost interest quickly. It almost felt like I was reading a novel, which makes sense given that some details were exaggerated and invented, no?

The book was very well-constructed. I liked how the first half focused almost exclusively on the Clutters (with some glimpses of the killers). Just when we know all we need to about the Clutter family, along come Smith and Hickock. Once the Clutters are murdered, Smith and Hickock, with policemen, relatives, and townspeople making appearances, become the new main characters.
 
I just finished the first part of the book and I was amazed at not only how easy it was to read, but was also amazed at the descriptions that Capote gave in the weeks leading up to the murders of the Clutter family and how the two murderers just went about their business in the weeks and months before. Will say more as I complete as I finish each part.
 
I read it a few weeks back. It's very well written - almost too well if you're reading it as a non-fiction piece. I got so immersed I had to remind myself every now and again that all of this stuff actually happened.

Maybe it's the lack of a first-person character (Capote could have put himself in) that made it kind of distant. I found Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as more realistic even though it's all drug fantasies - because there was an "I" that I could relate to.

Still, "In Cold Blood" is a great book.
 
I read this several years ago in high school so if my memory gets a little fuzzy on the details, you'll have to forgive me.

I remember that I had difficulty in putting this book down while I read it. Capote called it the first "non-fiction" novel, didn't he? Then once the killers enter the picture you start to notice how Capote portrays Perry as somewhat-less-than-a-vicious-killer in his writings as they become closer.
 
It's interesting to watch the recent film Capote in conjunction with reading In Cold Blood, as it depicts the period in Capote's life when he was writing the book. Also a good companion piece is George Plimpton's oral biography Truman Capote, which has interviews with the police involved and so on - some of whom didn't like Capote one bit - and which relates the rumours that Capote and Perry Smith had a more than professional relationship in that little death row cell. :eek:

cabbagescribe said:
It's very well written - almost too well if you're reading it as a non-fiction piece.

This is an interesting point. The quality of the writing - as good as his best fiction - is the principle reason why I like the book. Do you feel that non-fiction should be more plain-speaking and unvarnished, 'just the facts' sort of thing?
 
Do you feel that non-fiction should be more plain-speaking and unvarnished, 'just the facts' sort of thing?

Well if the writer chooses that method, then fine with me. I don't think non-fiction HAS to be that way. Give us the facts, of course, but don't be afraid to write in a way that's not plain-spoken and offers up "just the facts".
 
Shade said:
It's interesting to watch the recent film Capote in conjunction with reading In Cold Blood, as it depicts the period in Capote's life when he was writing the book. Also a good companion piece is George Plimpton's oral biography Truman Capote, which has interviews with the police involved and so on - some of whom didn't like Capote one bit - and which relates the rumours that Capote and Perry Smith had a more than professional relationship in that little death row cell. :eek:
There's actually another biopic of Capote coming out very soon, based on Plimpton's book and covering... well... the exact same period as "Capote" does. Except this one has Sandra Bullock. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420609/

Who said Hollywood was running out of ideas?
 
Like Anamnesis,I found In Cold Blood to be very well constructed. The first sections with the family got me immediately involved and keen to discover how the events would unfold - whilst I was aware of the true crime, I hadn't known any details.
If I remember rightly,the opening section was pretty full of 'had he known then..'/'unaware it was his last..' type foreshadowing. In a fiction book I would have found this beyond irritating, but I think it worked quite well in In Cold Blood because it emphasised the coming deaths, forcing me to remember that this was the account of a true crime and that I shouldn't look at it/treat it the way I would a straight crime fiction book. A very controlled book.
Any thoughts on the relationship between Dick & Perry?

Shade:Also a good companion piece is George Plimpton's oral biography Truman Capote, which has interviews with the police involved and so on - some of whom didn't like Capote one bit - and which relates the rumours that Capote and Perry Smith had a more than professional relationship in that little death row cell.
That sounds rather appealing:D . I'll add it to my buy list.
 
Shade said:
This is an interesting point. The quality of the writing - as good as his best fiction - is the principle reason why I like the book. Do you feel that non-fiction should be more plain-speaking and unvarnished, 'just the facts' sort of thing?

I do like the book and the writing style. It's just that I am used to having a central narrator to a non-fiction work, I found In Cold Blood a little strange from the lack of one. It read more like a novel than a non-fiction piece.
 
I read this in 1983, when I was in college, but not for a class. It's packed away in a box now and I don't have the time to find it much less read it again. However, I do recall being engaged wit the story and unable to put it down. I liked Capote's profiling of Smith and Hickock, although some of Perry's musings and dreams were over-the-top (something about a parrot?) and too sympathetic in their detailing.

What still haunts me about this book is the rural setting and the fate of this family. Being a NYer, I always imagined the countryside to be relatively free of violent crime -- I found this lonely farm landscape a much more disturbing place to die than on the streets of a crowded city. I was also troubled by the circumstances in which these two common thieves invaded the Cutter idyll -- a simple rumor followed by a robbery gone wrong. A fluke, a freak-out, and four people are dead. Life is so cruel and out of control, even in the middle of nowhere!

I always thought the old black-and-white film was an excellent screen adaptation, so stark and edgy. I just recently watched the film Capote and thoroughly enjoyed the background story to the book -- the colors and mood were just right.
 
This will really date me, but I read In Cold Blood when it was first published and I was still in high school.

I remember getting flack from family members who accused me of reading sensationalized garbage. People either loved it or hated it. The detractors, particularly other journalists, didn't like the subjectification of a current news item. Others, thought it was a brilliant way to personalize an otherwise distant, not-in-my-neighbourhood story. Since then, there's been much written about how In Cold Blood started a whole new journalism trend with a blend of storytelling and fact finding journalism - reading more like a novel than a news story. However, at the time, nobody knew Capote was starting a new trend.

So, it's been awhile since I read the book. But what I do remember, quite distinctly, is that I was completely captivated by the story and the indelible images Capote created as he set the scene of the murders and described the two men. Now, as an adult reader, I can only marvel at his skill as a writer - something lost on me at the time. It's probably time for a re-read.
 
This was a good one to read.

It's interesting to watch the recent film Capote in conjunction with reading In Cold Blood, as it depicts the period in Capote's life when he was writing the book. Also a good companion piece is George Plimpton's oral biography Truman Capote, which has interviews with the police involved and so on - some of whom didn't like Capote one bit - and which relates the rumours that Capote and Perry Smith had a more than professional relationship in that little death row cell. :eek:



This is an interesting point. The quality of the writing - as good as his best fiction - is the principle reason why I like the book. Do you feel that non-fiction should be more plain-speaking and unvarnished, 'just the facts' sort of thing?

I'm interested in watching the video, I haven't yet and can't wait. I also heard about the relationship between Perry and Capote.....I'll probly check out your recommendation. Thanks!
 
it took me a good 60 pages or so to actually get into the book.. however, i loved how it read like a novel and Capote dedicated a good portion of the book to vastly creating the "characters." everyone had their own distinct persona and background
 
I believe I was about 12 when I read this book, and I found it to be a great read (even my immature pre-teen mind knew it was a good 'un!). A gritty, blood psychological thriller - what a brilliant idea to focus on the murderers!
 
I was searching the net for discussion forums after having finished this book last night. What a great read.

I agree that one can be left with the impression that Capote was sympathetic with the murderers...as the final two-thirds of the book were focused on the two. Rumors of Capote's romantic involvement with Perry Smith lend credibility to this thought as well.

Also, comparing the crimes of the other Death Row inmates (Lowell Lee Andrews, Ronnie York and James Latham) and the heinousness of their brutal, random crimes "softened" the shock we felt of Smith and Hickock. Putting down a book and then walking into the parlor and slaughtering one's family because one views them as "insects" not nearly as high on the "food chain" as oneself, killing random strangers because one feels one is doing the victim "a favor" etc. We're to think that Smith and Hickock committed their crimes out of a desperate need to survive, as opposed to some twisted, schizophrenic rampage.

Thoughts?
 
We're to think that Smith and Hickock committed their crimes out of a desperate need to survive, as opposed to some twisted, schizophrenic rampage. Thoughts?

I felt that Capote portrayed Smith and Hickock as not quite right in the head. Whether this was caused by Smith's upbringing or Hickock's accident, who knows. But, they killed, and definitely IN COLD BLOOD. It was a gruesome and calculated robbery, and whether either of them had doubts at the moments of shooting, they had intended to murder from the beginning, and all for money.

Excellent read, and easier to read than I expected. It read like a novel. I kept enjoying thinking about how much was imagined; not of the crime facts, but of the details like weather and the smell of the air.
 
I felt that Capote portrayed Smith and Hickock as not quite right in the head. Whether this was caused by Smith's upbringing or Hickock's accident, who knows. But, they killed, and definitely IN COLD BLOOD. It was a gruesome and calculated robbery, and whether either of them had doubts at the moments of shooting, they had intended to murder from the beginning, and all for money.

Oh for sure. I don't think we're ever led to believe that these men were anything less than cold and brutal. However, in the chapters that dealt with psychological evaluations and the medical/legal distinctions between "sane" and "insane" we're to believe that Hickock and Smith are, in fact, *not* insane...just cold blooded. That the difference between "sane" and "insane" is that a "sane" killer's motives can "be understood, yet condemned" whereas the "insane" person's motives cannot be understood.

Though one doctor had claimed, were he allowed to testify as to Smith's mental capacity, he would have stated, in summation, that Smith *was* insane and Hickock was not.

I think it's clear that Lowell Lee Andrews, Ronnie York and James Latham were insane (by the legal definitions in Kansas at the time) and, according to what I was able to glean from Capote's well written, though well hidden, opinion was that insane people should be spared the death penalty.

A death penalty debate is neither here nor there...but within the context of the book clues are given as to whether we're to believe Smith is insane. Smith had a horrid upbringing (personally I can't imagine surviving as long as he did were it I that lived the life he led) that he was psychotically detached from his actions. He states he felt like he was watching himself commit the murders.

Going back to the definitions that we're given in the book, an insane person's motives for murder cannot be understood. Smith claims over and over that he murdered the Clutters because he wanted to "prove" something, be it some strange alpha-male type interplay between the two, to Hickock...he wanted to "teach him a lesson". Smith claims that right up to the very moment he sliced the first victim's throat, Smith was "just testing" Hickock. Those motives boggle my mind! He WAS insane! However, the under-sherrif's wife tells the author that Smith cried when the death penalty was given. Refuting the claim that Smith "didn't care".

Hickock, on the other hand, planned on robbing and killing the family from the moment he knew of their peaceful existence. While those motives are deplorable, they can be understood. Hickock, in his view, just needed to find a way to survive.
 
Back
Top