For Next Week: Part Four, "The Corner"

This is the LAST set of questions for the class, so if you've been behind in answering them, try to at least do these (and make up any that you've missed--you can do the last two, even though they're pretty late!).

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: While separated in prison, Perry writes in his diary, "Many thoughts of Dick," and suggests that the hardest thing for him is being separated from Dick. Does Capote suggest that Perry was in love with Dick? Is this feeling mutual? Might this also explain the "accident" that occurred at the Clutters? Is it just an irrelevant detail of a criminal's life...or an important  piece of context? 

Q2: What is revealing about the autobiographical sketches Dick and Perry write for the court psychiatrist? What do they reveal about their states of mind, mental competency, and general awareness of their crimes? Are they both playing at being victims? Are they enjoying their moment in the spotlight? Is this, in some sense, what both of them were waiting for?

Q3: On page 306, several people weigh in on what should happen to Dick and Perry, including the Reverend Post, who believes all criminals should have part of their brains removed to prevent further violence. What should be the just punishment for two men who killed a family for "forty dollars worth of loot"? Why do some people have problems with simply killing them, especially as the law allows it? What might some the 'gray areas' of hanging be? 

Q4: In general, why do so many people feel compassion and mercy for Perry, especially if he was truly the one who committed the murders?  Why do strangers such as Donald Cullivan travel all the way to Kansas in order to 'save' him? And why does even Dewey think he's an "exiled animal, a creature walking wounded, that the detective could not disregard" (341)? Is he simply good at duping people? Or is he another victim of this terrible accident in Holcomb, Kansas? 

Paper #4 assignment (and no class on Wednesday!)

 Remember that I had to cancel class on Wednesday, though I will be in my office working if you need me for any reason. The questions for Friday are in the post below this one. Try to finish Chapter 3, "Answer" by then, and we'll do some in-class writing in preparation. Also, Paper #4 is posted below, which I gave out in class yesterday:

English 1213

Paper #4: The Conversation of Crime

“It wasn’t because of anything the Clutter did. They never hurt me. Like other people. Like people have all my life. Maybe it’s just that the Clutters were the ones who had to pay for it” (290).

INTRO: Some have accused In Cold Blood for glorifying monsters, for giving too much space for Perry and Dick to tell their stories. And what do we learn from these stories? That they feel that the world wronged them, and (as in the quote above) that someone had to pay for it? Should it matter why people kill, or just that they do kill? Why should the criminals be as important (or even more important) than the victims? And yet, isn’t that true of so many stories today: don’t we know the killers’ names much more than those they killed? Don’t we make movies about the monsters, and not the innocent? Did In Cold Blood start a trend that has replaced ethics with entertainment? Should we pay money to learn about the secret lives of people like Perry and Dick?

PROMPT: For your last paper, I want you to discuss the ethics of reading and writing about criminals. What should we be learning from their stories, if anything? Why did Capote devote so much of his story to Dick and Perry? What did he want us to see and experience? Is this useful? Is it ethical? Or does it distract from the single-minded pursuit of justice for unlawful acts? Respond to Capote’s story and either defend or refute his approach to writing about crime and criminals.

ALSO: Bring in another famous or somewhat famous crime where the criminals have gained notoriety because of what we wrote or said about them. Why is this? What was the fascination with their crimes? What did we learn about them? How does it compare with In Cold Blood? Does hearing the criminals in their own words really help us determine justice? Do we need to learn the context of murder? Does it really change anything: either what happened or how we feel about it? How much should we know?

REQUIREMENTS: no page limit, but make a convincing conversation with your ideas + Capote’s + 2-3 sources about another crime/criminal. You must QUOTE and cite according to MLA Format.

DUE: Friday, April 29^th by 5pm

For Next Week: Capote, Part Three: "Answers"

NOTE: You have all week to answer these questions, and we'll discuss the beginning, middle, and end of this chapter next week. Keep reading throughout the week and get as far as you can for each class. 

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 to make things seem divinely inspired? Is this real, or a novelistic trick of the author? 

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?

For Monday: Capote, In Cold Blood, Part Two

NOTE: The Scissortail Extra Credit questions are the in the post BELOW this one

ALSO: Read as much of Part Two as you can, but you don't have to finish it for Monday. We'll discuss this chapter all week in class.  

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Shortly after the crime, Perry confides to 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?