There are very few nonfiction stories that were as good as In Cold Blood. True, the story pushed the limits of nonfiction. Actually, I think that the reason I liked this story was that it was not some dusty, crusty almanac from some even dustier, crustier library. It was modern and definitely pushed some boundaries. One thing I loved was the parallel story lines between the killers and the victims/towns folk. The parallel stories help keep the story interesting right up until the end.
To establish the difference, when talking about the townspeople and the Clutter family, the writing style resembles a nonfiction reporter type of writing. When discussing the death penalty, Capote writes, “Kansas abolished capital punishment in 1907; in 1935, due to a sudden prevalence in the Midwest of rampaging professional criminals… the state legislators voted to restore it” (311). By using dates, which establishes logos, it sets up the formal tone of this part of the parallel story.
The other part, when referring to the criminals Dick and Perry, uses more of a fictional narrative style. This is mostly achieved through use of dialog. Dialog is almost impossible to write for a nonfiction story, because unless there is a transcript, it cannot be totally real. For instance, how did Capote know that Perry said exactly “That’s all. Somebody he could work their guts out and never have to pay them one hot dime. No, Bobo, I’m talking. Shut up or I’ll throw you in the river” (185). Because dialog from real life cannot be exact, it seems more like fiction. These aspects of fiction definitely made the story easier for me to read. I think my problem with nonfiction is that the facts seem endlessly drilling into my brain, as the cheesecloth I my head tries to save as many acts as possible for use later. Capote presents the murder as if it was fiction, which means the facts are not as focused on. It makes it easier for me to understand, and altogether, more enjoyable.
No comments:
Post a Comment