In Cold Blood was essentially embellished journalistic research. Most embellishment is untrue or exaggerated. However, Capote used it as a tool to add life and personality to his novel. In Cold Blood read like a novel and followed the typical format of a novel. It used suspense and a climatic plot to engage the reader. Unlike typical journalism, It kept elements of the story secret, keeping the reader engaged. It was journalistic in his research and his purpose. Capote wrote the novel to document the tragic events that happened in Holcomb. Most journalism provides such documentation. Capote also held many interviews with the murderers and individuals close to the case, investigating as a journalist would. Capote successfully married the two genres of writing in this book - an example of journalism with added life and characterization.
I agree with pretty much everything you posted. It was almost like he used the journalism genre to back up his novel. He did use the novel to pull the reader in. Like you said journalism can be boring at times because it does not have much action.
I am glad you agree with me! Like you said, the action pulled the reader in and made the novel more interesting for me. It is what made the novel so enjoyable.
In the article, Cold Blood Auction, the surviving daughters of the Clutter family called the book a disrespectful mockery of their family. Yes, the author embellished some to get the reader more involved and most likely shield the reader from the most gruesome parts of the case. In that way the story is similar to a novel, while the majority of the book was similar to a journalistic recount of the case in progress. The way that the author created two settings or viewpoints that occurred at the same time is the best example of merging journalism and fiction into a non-fiction novel.
I agree with you, Drew. Capote added some details to make readers more interested. Personally, I am glad he did, because I don't think I could read 350 pages of purely informational facts.
Thank you Rachel! At least someone is on my side!
I agree! The mere definitions of novel, and journalism speak for themselves in the book quite often!
In Cold Blood is like a novel because Capote is telling a story. He goes into details about the events that are happening. He wrote about a murder that happened awhile ago, and it was not well-known. In Cold Blood is like a journalism Capote researched the murder before starting the book. He made sure all of his information was accurate. He interviewed people involving the murder. Capote used journalism to write the novel.
By using a case that was not well known I feel like it gave Capote the freedom to create an enticing story without disrespecting the deceased family. He didn't need to create a completely obscured situation to make it interesting; he could still use a lot of the facts.
I never really thought of that point. The case not being well-known did give Capote the freedom to enhance the story of the murder. He was able to do it in a respectable manner like you said.
I think you summed it up perfectly Brittany. The reasoning behind why In Cold Blood is like a novel is very true; because there is a person telling the story. And you are also right that In Cold Blood is like journalism because all the information in the novel is accurate.
To me, In Cold Blood was like a novel because of the way Capote wrote it. He had a story line, and switched back and forth between the Clutters, the murderers, and the detectives. He may have added some details to the story to make it more interesting or touching to the reader, also. I heard that he may have added Perry’s apology at he end. The story is like journalism because it recounts real facts and actions. He researched and interviewed extensively, and used the facts to write the story, like journalists do.
I agree with every detail of this post completely. The story line, as you stated, was the glue holding all of Capote's research together into a complied, easily-read "novel". I didn't hear about the apology, but I do know that while interviewing Perry, Capote would write at least twice a week and developed a soft spot for him.
I didn't know that, but I certainly believe it. The novel really portrays Perry in a positive way, but doesn't do the same for Dick.
I agree with you Rach, Capote has a way of telling us a murder in the way it becomes a story. His facts and information are very accurate and one can tell he knew what he was doing when he wrote this.
I know Kenz! It's crazy. I guess he interviewed a lot of people and did a lot of research, but you could never tell because he never makes an appearance in the novel.
I loved the way he combined the novel with journalism and nonfiction. It is just like journalism, because he actually did research. He was sure to interview different types of people involved in the case. This gives a good base of knowledge and allows him to see things in a different perspective. He was sure to present the facts. He recorded everything that happened. The novel part comes in for the audience. He told us the story. Capote presented the facts in a story line. This is different than just throwing it at our faces. In Cold Blood is a novel, because he added fluff to it. I'm not really a "facts only" type of person. It can get really boring, especially if it is about something I don't care about. The extra details allow readers to follow along with the case. It also helps with understanding the characters. I usually follow characters when I read or see them. Mentioning does nothing for me. Novels can also tweak some facts too. Not everything happened the way he explained it in the novel. It gives the case a little oomf to it. I have seen and read things about real stories that have been tweaked. I'm always devastated when I find out that something never happened or was tweaked. It makes it lame for me. The fluff typically adds emotion and drama. For instance, Titanic is a real story; however, Jack and Rose never were. Their romance added those elements to the story. Not many people want to know what happened to the ship and how it was destroyed. No one wants to talk about the engine and how the ship was constructed poorly. There needs to be something else to make it more interesting. The novel was like a novel because of those tweaks. It was journalism, because there was true facts and paperwork from different types of evidence.
*In Titanic, I seriously thought Jack taught Rose how to fly. She "said" to him, "I'm flying, Jack!" I crack up every time.
There are several reasons none replied to my blog. My response might not have made much sense. I could have structured it better. Had I done that, my classmates would have understood what I was trying to say. The Titanic reference probably threw people over. No one saw the connection I was making between the movie and the book. Some of my fellow bloggers just don't like to help a sister out. Hopefully, they are running out of words. I never seem to have that problem. My classmates might conclude that I can just do them myself since I have all the words.
In cold blood is like a novel because Capote tells a story. He set up each scene, gave a background of the characters, and added in elements to draw in the reader. It is like journalism because he reports on events that occurred. He provided accurate information on the murders.
That's a good point, accurate information. Some people might pretend like it's accurate when it really isn't. The way you worded journalism reminded me of the news. They tell you what's going on. The book is similar to the news, but only based off one story.
He sort of set it up like a crime show such as 48 hours where he reaccounted both the murder and actions of the murderers.
In Cold Blood is like a novel because of the Capote sets it up, and sets up every scene. He is telling a story, not just listing facts like most journalists do.
I like Mackenzie's response. It is short, simple, and to the point unlike the overwhelming paragraph responses. I agree the novel was more like a novel because he was telling a story; not just fictional research journal.
I think Drew just threw me under the bus, backed up and did it again. Hold on, I need to go pick up my heart miles away from the accident, because it broke into tiny trenchant pieces!!!
I'm sorry Evelyn!! I was talking in general! It's a good thing this is our last blog so I don't hurt any more feelings...
In Cold Blood is like a novel because there is someone telling the story, thus making it a novel. What makes In Cold Blood like journalism is the information. The information that is in In Cold Blood is real and authenticated information.
According to the Google Dictionary a novel is "a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism." The author's book is in general a non-ficiton book, and is long therefore making "In Cold Blood" known as a novel. This book could depict journalism due to the authors analysis on the different events happening in the book.
I love your analysis for this question, and how you added the definition! I completely agree
In Cold Blood is a little of both journalism and a novel. It was a novel in the way it was formatted and written, but journalistic due to the fact of the author's analysis and research.
You need to post on each topic. Respond to someone else's topic post, and then revisit your original posting. You should post at least 12 times.