Last Response for Part 4 of In Cold Blood (a short one!)

No more questions!! But I do have a short response for Part 4 that you can post here as a comment, just as a way to round out our discussion, and to look ahead at the Final paper assignment (see assignment in post below this one). Remember, if you haven't e-mailed me your 3 connections between the books (which is Short Paper #3--really a list more than a paper) then please do so as soon as possible. Doing this will help you on the final paper, and it will also allow me to offer you some personal guidance before you start. Most people seem to have a good idea of where they want to go, but if you feel lost, never fear--I can help you!

After you read Part 4, "The Corner," or are still reading it, answer the following question as a 'Comment' (or you can e-mail it to me): 

Q: The Reverend Post, who attended the trial, said to the author that "Doc Savage [a kind of Superman figure from old books/comics] had the right idea...he had an army of trained assistants [who] kidnapped all the world's criminals and brought them to [his] island. And Doc Savage operated on their brains. He removed the part that holds wicked thoughts. And when they recovered they were all decent citizens. They couldn't commit crimes because that part of their brains was out" (306).

Do you think if this was possible (to find the 'criminal' part of the brain), we should force everyone to undergo this operation? Would we remove the possibility of evil or criminal behavior in everyone, or even just people who commit violent crimes? Should people be lobotomized for the general good?  Would it be worth risking making such people vegetables rather than leaving them to hurt or kill again--or even to spend their lives in prison? 

Capote, In Cold Blood, Part 3: "Answers"

These are technically the last questions for the class (and the book); I will post something simple for Part 4, but it won't be a standard set of questions. So be sure to get this last set to me by next week, since that's our last week of classes. ALSO--be sure to read the post about assignments below this one. Get me Short Paper #3 (really just an e-mail) as soon as possible, but no later than Monday! 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: We get conflicting stories about the murder and its motivations: Perry claims that Dick is the "sick" one, who wanted to rape Nancy and cover the walls with blood...yet Dick claims that Perry is the one who murdered everyone, while he wished he had turned the gun on Perry. Which story do you believe? Or neither one? 

Q2: Perry's sister recalls her brother, when drunk, exclaiming that "I happen to have a brilliant mind...and talent plus. But no education, because he didn't want me to learn anything, only how to tote and carry for him. Dumb. Ignorant. That's the way he wanted me to be" (185). Do you think Capote believes that killers like Perry are made this way? Are parents and society largely to blame? Was Perry a budding genius cruelly neglected by his father? Or was he always going to be a "natural killer"?

Q3: Perry believes strongly in fate, and much of the book seems to hinge on strange coincidences and events. For example, when the Las Vegas police pick up the pair, Perry had just picked up a box from the post office (from Mexico) full of his souvenirs--including the boots he wore during the murder. Do you think Capote is trying to manipulate his narrative (like Vladek did) to make things seem divinely inspired (remember the use of fateful numbers in Maus)? Is this real, or something that the author is trying to make us see?

Q4: Reflecting on the "answers" for the murder, Dewey says, "The crime was a psychological accident, virtually an impersonal act; the victims might as well have been killed by lightning. Except for one thing: they had experienced prolonged terror, they had suffered" (245-246). What do you think this says about the nature of evil? And how might this compare to the acts of torture and death we see in Maus? 

Video Lecture and Short Paper #3/Conversation Paper #2 !

Be sure to watch the short video lecture on In Cold Blood, parts 1-2, since it sets up your next two paper assignments. Remember, this is what I would normally do in class to help you understand what to write about, so if you skip it, you might be a bit confused and you won't see some of the connections I want you to think about. Beneath the video, is the next two paper assignments, though they are linked. Read about it below and let me know if you have any questions! 

Short Paper #3 and Conversation Paper #2

Your Short Paper #3 is an abstract, meaning it merely states what you are going to try to do in your Conversation Paper #2. In a way, it is your thesis and your basic pre-writing before you actually start writing the paper. This way, you know what you want to say from the beginning, and you can do more focused research rather than trying to figure it all out in the end. So it’s not even a paper, but basically an e-mail (see below).

THE ABSTRACT: I want you to e-mail me the response to this question: both Maus and In Cold Blood are ‘true stories’ about tragedies that happen in the middle of the 20^th century (between 1939 and 1959). List 3-4 similarities that each story shares in its approach to history—what it shows, reveals, explains, and tries to reveal about why horrible events occur to ‘normal’ people. In other words, when do you get moments of déjà vu when reading these books that make you go, “oh wow, I’ve read this before…the same thing happened in Maus (or vice versa).” This is due no later than Monday, August 27th (so you can start focusing on the CP#2 below). 

CONVERATION PAPER #2: Your conversation paper is going to take us through the similarities in your abstract to answer the question, “according to both authors, what went wrong in the 20^th century? How could such violent, criminal acts occur in civilized countries where people live normal, decent lives? What are the similarities between the Nazis and the Holcomb killers? What illusions about ‘real life’ do both books shatter, and why could this happen again in the 21^st century in our own back yards? What ‘truths’ do these books reveal about the nature of horror and why human beings continue to punish each other in unspeakable ways?”

In answer this big question, think about the following:

• The similarities between both works: how do they use history to reveal our own present?
• How do they use fiction to tell the truth we couldn’t otherwise see?
• What do they reveal about history that we didn’t know or were told wasn’t true (or simply weren’t told about)?
• What parts of the story are hardest for the authors to explain or write about? Why is this?
• People always say “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” If so, what is being repeated today? Or has history never stopped…are we still living in the same world as Maus and In Cold Blood?
• What characters do the authors want us to identify with the most and why? What can we learn from their story?
• What do other writers have to say about these historical events (the Holocaust, Holcomb) or the novels themselves? Think about naysayers or merely other voices at the table. Use them to help you discuss the conversation.

NOTE: Conversation Paper #2 is your final assignment, so I always meant to treat it as a final exam. Therefore, it will be due on the last day of Finals, FRIDAY, MAY 8^th

Capote, In Cold Blood, Part 2: "Persons Unknown"

Truman Capote on the set of the film, In Cold Blood 

NOTE: Be sure to do the first set of questions before this one (see previous post), so you don't fall too far behind. However, you don't have to turn these questions in until next week. Also, I should have your SP#2 assignments back to you by the weekend, so check your ECU e-mail! 

Q1: Shortly after the crime, Perry confides t Dick that "There's got to be something wrong with somebody who'd do a thing like that" (108). He says this several times, though Dick basically shrugs it off, considering himself "a normal." Is Perry expressing regret or remorse here? What does he mean by this, and how might it explain something about why they did it in the first place?

Q2: Mrs. Dewey, the wife of one of the investigators, asks her husband, "Do  you think we'll ever have a normal life again?" (105). This is a question many people are asking themselves today, in the wake of COVID and social distancing. Why are they worried that life will change and never be 'normal' again after one family's death? What has changed in their eyes? 

Q3: Why does Capote include several long letters from the people in Perry's life--his father and his sister, especially? What do we learn about him through these letters, and why do you think he kept them (esp. as they are often very critical of his behavior)? 

Q4: Dewey, the lead investigator, felt that "at least one of the murderers was emotionally involved with the victims, and felt for them, even as he destroyed them" (103). What made him think this, and why did their seem to be a personal motive involved in the killings? As far as we know, was this true? 

For Next Week: Capote, In Cold Blood, Part One (pp.3-74)

READ Part One, "The Last To See Them Alive," which is like one mega-chapter. It's a lot of reading, but it goes quickly and I'll give you plenty of time to respond. I won't give you another section to read until around Thursday or Friday. 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Truman Capote is reconstructing the events leading up the murder based on interviews and his own intuition. He wasn't literally in the car with the killers to hear their conversation, and he never even met the victims. Do you think it's fair to write a fictional reconstruction of 'real' events like this? Or is it more like the manipulation of photos that we saw in Morris? Did it bother you--or did it help you understand the events?

Q2: For most people in the town, the Clutters were the perfect American family: successful, close-knit, and high-achieving. And while Capote doesn't contradict this portrait, what secrets did the family keep behind the scenes? What makes them less 'perfect' than appearances might show?

Q3: Why was Dick so drawn to Perry? As Capote depicts them, they're very different people, and at times don't even seem to like each other very much. What made them 'fated' to be together, in his eyes?

Q4: Writing about the town of Holcomb, Capote notes, "The inhabitants of the village, numbering two hundred and seventy, were satisfied that this should be so, quite content to exist inside ordinary life--to work, to hunt, to watch television, to attend school socials, choir practice, meetings of the 4-H Club" (5). Based on this, what makes Holcomb worthy of writing about in a book like this? Since most people have never even heard of it, why is a murder in Holcomb a national event? What makes Holcomb uniquely 'American'? 

Quick Response Assignment (to help with SP #2)

NOTE: Be sure to watch the video in the post below first. It will help you with your Short Paper #2 assignment, as well as this short writing. 

In a COMMENT, I want you to add words to each frame of the Spiderman comic below. Try to determine what story the pictures alone are telling, and then add words to change that story--help us see something different, more complex, or more humorous, or more surprising. 

Remember that when words and images come together, they can change what we see and make us tell a different story. McCloud, in his book Understanding Comics, talks about many of the word + image relationships, such as "Additive" (when words add something to the image), "Parallel" (when words and images are both telling different stories), and "Interdependent" (when words and images each add something important to the story, and complement each other). 

In your COMMENT, just write Frame #1: words... Frame #2: more words... Have fun with it and think about how words change pictures and tell different stories. This is what I want you to examine in Short Paper #2, so consider this useful practice! 

This is ALL you have to do this week, other than write the Short Paper #2 assignment by Friday. For next week, we'll start reading Capote's In Cold Blood, and I'll give you instructions on that around Friday. Good luck and let me know if you have any questions! 

Short Paper #2 and Short Lecture

I'm posting the Short Paper #2 below. It's due next Friday by 5pm. However, watch the video first, because it gives important context for the paper assignment and some ideas about how to think about Maus. Again, this is all material I would have covered in class, but sadly, can only give you a short video lecture on today. Please let me know if you have any questions about the paper as a comment below, or via e-mail. I won't give you a comment question for this video, so no need to comment (this time). Just make sure to answer the last questions for Maus (in the last post) and start thinking about the short paper! 

Short Paper #2: Words and Pictures

INTRO: For your Second Short Paper assignment, I want you to focus on how Spiegelman uses words and pictures together to change the meaning of his comic, adding context that we might not have seen or been aware of. Just like in the photos from Morris’ book, when you add words to an image, it changes what we see and how we experience it. This could make the picture more “true” or more “false” depending on what the artist wants you to see, or what the picture represents about history, people, etc. In a comic book, the pictures alone don’t tell the story, since they could tell many different stories. The words help us frame the stories in a specific moment for a specific meaning, even when they seem to push against the meaning of the images.

PROMPT: So for this assignment, I want you to choose TWO passages from the comic, one from Maus I: My Father Bleeds History, and one from Maus II: And Here My Troubles Began. A “passage” should be no more than a few frames, or a single page at most. Discuss how these two passages change when you add the words to the pictures. In other words, if you blocked out the words, why wouldn’t you ‘see’ this story or this idea? Discuss why he wanted us to see this, and how it complements some of the major themes of his novel and of the Holocaust itself. Be sure to describe the images so we can understand how the words work with the images: in other words, don’t just tell us what the words say. Think back to your first short paper, when you had to describe the photos from Humans of New York.

REQUIREMENTS:

• At least 2-3 pages, double spaced (though you can go beyond this)
• Only choose TWO passages, one from each part of the book (Maus I and Maus II)
• Describe images and cite the passages you use, using page numbers according to MLA format
• For example: In Chapter Three, “And Here My Troubles Began,” Vladek sees a man shot by a German soldier and reflects, ““The dog was rolling so, around and around, kicking, before he lay quiet. And now I thought: “how amazing it is that a human being reacts the same like this neighbor’s dog” (82).
• DUE FRIDAY, APRIL 10^th by 5pm via e-mail (jgrasso@ecok.edu)

Final Questions for Maus Part 2, Chapters 3-5

Be sure to finish Maus this week, and answer two of the following for Monday (though you can e-mail it earlier as well). Since we don't really have class on MWF, the questions don't have to be due this week--but no later than next Monday. I'll post the Paper #2 assignment along with a short discussion (also explaining the paper) tomorrow, so look out for both! 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Chapters Three and Four use photographs throughout, not just drawings of photographs, but also real ones, such as the one of Vladek at the end. How do these photographs add a unique layer to the story? What do they show us that no amount of fictional storytelling could manage? 

Q2: In Chapter Three, Vladek hassles Artie to take home a used box of cereal. When Artie refuses, Vladek responds, "I cannot forget it...ever since Hitler I don't like to throw out even a crumb." How much should we blame the Holocaust for the 'present' Vladek, who is often insulting, intolerant, and outright racist? Does Artie believe the Holocaust made him this way? Should we?

Q3: When Maus was first published, the New York Times put it on their bestseller list for fiction, which Spiegelman strongly objected to. He claimed it was "non-fiction," even though the editor told him, "when you show me a six-foot mouse, then I'll call it non-fiction." Based on your reading of the book, what category do you feel best represents this book: fiction? Non-fiction? History? Something else? Or should it just be called a "comic book"? 

Q4: What do you make of the interesting passage in Chapter Three, where a soldier shoots a prisoner for walking too slowly, and Vladek says, "And now I thought: how amazing it is that a human being reacts the same like his neighbor's dog." This not only destroys the animal metaphor (since the American soldiers are portrayed as dogs), but it also makes an interesting connection between men and animals. What might this say about the true danger of the Holocaust and of Nazi ideology? What makes people become dogs (or other animals)? What keeps us 'human'?