5/3/10

In Cold Blood


Melissa Blum recommended In Cold Blood by Truman Capote at the last book group.  She accompanied her recommendation with the revelation that many people think that Capote was in love with one of the killers in the book and that reading with this lens was worthwhile (even if you had read the book before).  I took the bait and was quite quickly absorbed into the novel.  I had not read the book before so I was trying to take in as much as could as a firsthand account, while keeping Melissa’s subtext in the back of my mind.  The book was of course, wonderful.  I feel it lives up to the hype of literary masterpiece, while at the same time being a very approachable novel.  On the surface it is very straight forward and a fascinating story, interesting in and of itself before examining the literary technique.  I will admit I had to read more before understanding what was meant by “non-fiction novel”, a genre of literature Capote claims to have invented with this novel.  In 1966 Capote sits for an interview with the New York Times to discuss In Cold Blood (find it here http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/12/28/home/capote-interview.html)  I find it really interesting how Capote describes manipulating non-fiction characters so that his own perspective of them can be understood by readers


I've often thought of the book as being like something reduced to a seed. Instead of presenting the reader with a full plant, with all the foliage, a seed is planted in the soil of his mind. I've often thought of the book in that sense. I make my own comment by what I choose to tell and how I choose to tell it. It is true that an author is more in control of fictional characters because he do anything he wants with them as long as they stay credible. But in the nonfiction novel one can also manipulate: If I put something in which I don't agree about I can always set it in a context of qualification without having to step into the story myself to set the reader straight.
This leads to the subtext that Melissa was talking about.  After I finished the novel I went straight to the internet to read more about this alleged affair.  I knew of course that if Capote was in love with one of the killers, it was obviously Perry Smith.  Smith is portrayed as a very sympathetic character, whom people seem to pity/like even after he’s committed the murders.  Capote definitely believed that Perry killed out of psychosis, a snap action that occurred only because of a bickering with co-conspirator, Dick, and Smith needing to prove himself at that specific moment.  All I could find of a relationship between the two is that one of the Investigators on the case, Nye, suspected they had had an affair because Capote and Smith were both homosexuals and Capote would always bribe the guards to go around the corner when he visited Smith in the penitentiary.   Whether or not there was a physical relationship there was definitely an emotional one.  Capote researched this novel for 6 years, writing the two killers twice a week after their capture and visiting them many times per year.  Many have suspected that the involvement with this novel traumatized Capote, dealing with conflicting emotions of sympathy for the murdered Clutter family (Capote apparently felt a kinship with murdered Nancy) but also his deep sympathy for Smith.  How if things had gone differently in his life, the same thing could have happened to him.  In the same interview mentioned above Capote explains to Smith his motivation for writing the novel.  I think it shows the closeness between the two men as well as Capote’s grandiose plans for the novel.

Perry was always asking me: Why are you writing this book? What is it supposed to mean? I don't understand why you're doing it. Tell me in one sentence why you want to do it. So I would say that it didn't have anything to do with changing the readers' opinion about anything, nor did I have any moral reasons worthy of calling them such--it was just that I had a strictly aesthetic theory about creating a book which could result in a work of art.
"That's really the truth, Perry," I'd tell him, and Perry would say, "A work of art, a work of art," and then he'd laugh and say, "What an irony, what an irony." I'd ask what he meant, and he'd tell me that all he ever wanted to do in his life was to produce a work of art. "That's all I ever wanted in my whole life," he said. "And now, what was happened? An incredible situation where I kill four people, and you're going to produce a work of art." Well, I'd have to agree with him. It was a pretty ironic situation.
While I think the evidence is compelling that Capote did have a deep emotional connection with Smith is compelling, I’m not convinced it lead to his demise.   He died twenty years after the book was published.  He was part of an art culture and aesthetic that centered around the idea of “celebrity” (ANDY WARHOL ANYONE!!?!!).   In the 70’s he got caught up in high society, Studio ’54 club scene, and talk show circuit.  He had plenty of wealthy benefactors to support him, making it so he didn’t need to work for money.  He had a following on late night shows (like Carson) who would listen and love him through television, making it so he didn’t need to work for admiration.  He was part of Andy Warhol’s Factory crew, making it so he didn’t need to prove himself artistically. Ultimately he published part of a novel, Answered Prayers, that identified and told salacious details about his wealthy society friends.  This caused him to be outcast and blackballed from all New York society and seems to me to be more of a reason he quit writing.  Ultimately no one can know, but everyone should read In Cold Blood and report back.

No comments:

Post a Comment