In Cold Blood
***** by Truman Capote. This is truly an outstanding book, one of the best I've read. In this, my year of reading (mostly) non-fiction, I can't believe I'll read anything better written than this book.
In Cold Blood is called a nonfiction novel, which is a term I believe Capote coined. He tells the true story of a family of four murdered "by persons unknown". We, the readers, are privileged to know who the killers are, and we follow their story simultaneously with that of the rest of the world as investigators track them down.
Despite the fact that we know the identity of the killers from very early on, Capote does a masterful job of keeping the story engaging and unpredictable. It is the ultimate in journalistic writing: keeping to the facts, not necessarily (as far as I know) adding anything to make them more exciting, yet somehow phrasing everything in perfect prose.
It took Capote six years to complete the book, for which he was ultimately paid at least two million dollars. I'm about to read this interview to find out more about the process he went through, but I can say now that the results are excellent reading.
I hope I've gotten my point across here. Book good. Go read.
[P.S. Apparently not everyone sees the book as purely factual. J.J. Maloney from Crime Magazine has written a response of sorts that has some things to say about this book, including some character attacks on Truman Capote. I'm not impressed, but I'm including it here for reference. For now.]
Posted by Joe on June 9, 2002 10:33 PM
Comments
I just read the J.J. Maloney article, and it strikes me as rather bizarre that a man who was allegedly nominated for the Pulitzer Prize (for journalism) five times would write such a nonrigorous, unsubstantiated "critique."
While I don't doubt that Capote had biases -- how could he not, having spent so much time with the key figures? -- and admit to the possibility that such biases may have molded his portrayal of the story, there's also reason to believe that Maloney had his own biases; the nonfiction novel threatens pure journalism, Maloney made his career on crime journalism, and he himself was subject to 13 years of prison life, having been given 4 life sentences.
The problem with Maloney's article isn't that he's wrong, as it's true we must rely on Capote's word on most of the book's events. The problem is that he is questioning Capote's integrity based on his (Maloney's) personal experiences, with little external evidence to back him up, and no conclusive external evidence whatsoever. Maloney never spoke to Capote, or to Dick, or to Perry; he doesn't cite documents refuting any of Capote's claims; he formed his own opinions based on his reading of the book and a couple of interviews and sees that as sufficient to debunk Capote.
Meanwhile, Capote tells a better story than Maloney. My future doesn't hinge on Capote's objectivity. Even if Capote had made the whole thing up, it would still be a good read (albeit not as awe-inspiring).
Posted by Lisa at June 10, 2002 08:25 AM