Connect with us

Published

on

I know it seems redundant to review In Cold Blood 54 years after it’s been published. The Withering Heights of true crime books, everyone has most likely heard about it by now though there are many who have yet to read it. I believe everyone should crack it open at least once. It’s largely credited as being the founder of the true-crime genre, making it a classic and one of the pioneers of literature, although I am not one to praise any novel just because it has the word “classic” attached to it. I think people should know more about it other than its status.

Truman Capote changed the literary world forever when he published In Cold Blood in 1966. It details the murders of the Clutter family in 1959 in the small farming community of Holcomb, Kansas. The four victims, Herbert Clutter, his wife Bonnie, and their two youngest children, Kenyon and Nancy were found dead in their house one morning with no obvious signs of robbery or any clue as to who did it. There seemed to be no motive.

In Cold Blood shares the last few hours of their lives before it gets into what the story is really about: the two deeply disturbed men responsible, and honestly…I expected something more. With the kind of reputation that this book has I expected something other than what felt like a two-hour special of Criminal Minds. I know In Cold Blood is more or less the first of it’s kind, so when compared to more recent true crime wonders like Helter Skelter, Devil in the White City and Columbine, it’s a slight let down. But read without expectations, and it is a phenomenal piece of true crime literature.

The Clutter family

Hickock and Smith

Perry Smith and Richard “Dick” Hickock are the murderers of this story and one doesn’t have to be there with Capote to know that he had conflicting feelings about them. The beginning of the novel talks much about the Clutter family. Enough to make readers mourn their deaths when it happens but much like how they died, the Clutter’s cease to exist once their hearts all stop beating. Capote drops them as if they never existed, further enforcing the “in cold blood” feeling the crime created when it first happened.

A crime of seemingly random chance. It’s that randomness that truly fascinated the public. “Of all the people in all the world, the Clutters were the least likely to be murdered.”

Advertisement

There are really two narratives in the novel. The confusion of the crime itself and that of Perry Smith. There’s a whole story about the creation of In Cold Blood that claimed Truman Capote became very attached to Smith while interviewing him. Almost too attached some might say, and the novel pretty much confirms this. The amount of time Capote spends on Smith is astounding, even the worst bits are spun in a sympathetic light. He spends pages and pages detailing Smith’s childhood, personality, and motivations while hardly a few paragraphs are saved for Hickock. (Not that I blame him because Dick was truly a dick.)

Make up your mind Capote

By focusing on Smith and his dark, damaged mind, it keeps the shock and pointlessness of the crime front and center. If Capote focused more Hickock it would have taken an entirely different perspective. Smith was harder to pin down and apparently had the capability to do good, which in fact was the alleged point of In Cold Blood. Capote was supposedly trying to humanize the Clutter’s killers, but in all honestly, the novel jumps around too much to make it believable.

Capote added in details that were unnecessary and then dropped them just as quickly. He goes too deep into trivial facts and not deep enough into important ones. He shows so much of Smith’s upbringing, painting him as a victim of his own mind and society, but then throws in a detail that disregards all of that. Then there’s the story of Hickock, the one who instigated the crime in the first place, who Capote doesn’t even try to reform in the reader’s eyes. (Again, I don’t blame him). A psychopathic pedophile rapist who admits that he only robbed the Clutters because he wanted to rape 16-year-old Nancy. (He never did by the way. Smith stopped him before he got the chance.)

Richard Hickock and Perry Smith

Jammed back race to the finish line

The final section of the novel is where it struggles to stay afloat. Smith and Hickock are arrested and sentenced to death but Capote doesn’t stop it there. He doesn’t even skip ahead and show their execution. No. He spends several pages discussing their eventless life on death row. He even goes as far as to introduce some of their neighboring murderers and their life stories. Lowell Lee Andrews a.k.a. “The Nicest Boy in Wolcott” and spree killer buddies George Ronald York and James Douglas Latham. They appear in the final section of In Cold Blood and stick around as if they had been there the whole time. All the while, Smith and Hickock go on, unconcerned about their approaching death date.

Verdict

I was honestly expecting something more chilling than what I got. Over the years, I’ve heard many rant and rave over the sheer cold brutality featured in Capote’s novel, the stuff of nightmares. Maybe it’s because I grew up obsessing over serial killers and read too many books detailing their twisted crimes but what was featured In Cold Blood feels like a combination of attempted psychology and point-by-point descriptions of true-life events but not enough of either. There is also an incredibly long section that deals strictly with their trial that feels a bit redundant. It’s used to include the public perception of them, their reactions to the public, their confessions, and their psyche evaluations but Capote crams everything together as if he was rushing to the finish line.

The true strength of In Cold Blood lies in its style. A true crime book that’s written in the form of a novel starting with a prologue, withholding the gory details until the very end, and ending with two men hanging from the gallows. Despite my complaints, it’s very good.

Advertisement
3.5 out of 5 stars (3.5 / 5)

Rachel Roth is a writer who lives in South Florida. She has a degree in Writing Studies and a Certificate in Creative Writing, her work has appeared in several literary journals and anthologies. @WinterGreenRoth

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Book Reviews

Monastery Series 7: a Book Review

Published

on

Hello again dear readers. Today we are looking at yet another instalment of Monastery. Once again, I’ll be eating my words. Every time I think the story can’t get any crazier, it does and you’ll understand why soon enough. Without further ado, let’s go!

Plot

We start with quite a tension point in the story (then again, it is always tense nowadays). Rocky’s been abducted and the gang is at a loss for words or motivation, all except Thomas, that is. At this point, all they want is to get Rocky back, even if it means abandoning the search for truth. I can appreciate how Thomas is now a foil not only to those hiding secrets but also to his cousins. Without him, there is no story as far as I’m concerned. However, there were some moments where even I thought he could’ve been a bit more tactful around others’ emotions.

We also see that at least for the time being, Rocky is safe. His POV is so well done I wanted to pull him out of the page and give him a big cuddle. Unfortunately, it looks like he’s yet another collateral damage of the family’s mess. 

Advertisement

Speaking of mess, Cassandra and Francis reach a fascinating opposing point. She’s concerned Francis is showing no remorse over killing George Turner, or over killing an innocent dog. Could Albert please ask around if there is a special circle of hell for people like him? It’s interesting how Cassandra, no matter how messed up she is, still has some sense of right or wrong. As for Francis, someone needs to take that gun off him ASAP as he’s all too happy using it.

As we all predicted, the Nicole-David-Fred love triangle finally blew up, and boy, how did it. Erica goes full-on scorned woman and drugs Nicole. She then parades her in the middle of Monastery for everyone to see in a wedding dress. Threatening to pour acid on her face is just an added touch to the terror.

Although this turns out to be just a mind game on Erica’s part, we get some insightful character revelations. Nicole’s reasoning for toying with the two guys becomes more understandable, although I still cannot excuse it (and I’m speaking as someone who actually likes Elena Gilbert). I think she could use some therapy to sort out the trauma inflicted by her dad’s affair. At this stage of her life, she shouldn’t end up with either guy. David is also at fault and I think he should work on making it up to Fred. If he and Nicole sail off into the sunset now, it would leave a bad taste in a lot of reader’s mouths. Then again, if Fred does decide to take her back, it would be his choice. Something tells me this ordeal is far from over. 

We end series seven of Monastery with Thomas receiving yet another blow when his dad betrays him and destroys all the progress of their investigation. So much for trusting family, or authorities for that matter. What is going to happen now?

Advertisement

Overall thoughts

I said a lot of my thoughts while discussing the plot of the episode. As usual, Monastery is full of of drama, mystery, and outright terrifying things to keep us on our toes. The one plot thread I am holding in my hand just waiting to see where it leads me is Madam Witch. Her very fairytale-like deal with Cassandra implies she owes her one of the grandkids. Not to mention the implication that Henry has some kind of special powers. I can’t wait to see how that ties into what happened to Albert. The next part can’t come out soon enough!  5 out of 5 stars (5 / 5)

More thoughts from the author:

1. Something I talked about before in another article about Monastery a little but something that I picked up on in this episode. Cassandra, although definitely not perfect, still seems to uphold some kind of morality within her. Such as how horrified she is when Francis doesn’t feel bad that he killed George. Was this something you considered when writing these characters, someone who’s not afraid to get their hands dirty but still has some kind of empathy vs someone who doesn’t?

Absolutely – that is my favourite type of character! Who doesn’t love an anti-hero with a grey moral compass, but a moral compass nevertheless? Cassandra is capable of the most atrocious acts, but she always has her family’s best interest at heart – or what her idea of their “best interest” should be.

Interestingly enough, we’re slowly learning how Francis is the result of Cassandra being the way she is, and he himself certainly blames her for much. Francis only has his own interest at heart… yet he killed George because of what the old creep had said about Cassandra! Again, grey area.

2. The whole Erica scene is genius on many levels. I actually got a couple of questions in regards to it. One – were you always going to pull the whole ‘none of the torture devices were real’ trick on the readers to toy with their emotions or were you thinking of doing it for real but backed out? Two – I thought the way the town’s residents acted was very fitting of the story and of modern society. What was your intention with having seemingly everyone witness the ordeal?

Funny, I cannot remember whether that mini-twist was always part of the equation, but I concluded that I didn’t want Erica to be hated or irredeemable – I wanted to make it more about the lesson being learned than the payback.

As for the townspeople witnessing the whole thing, there were three reasons I did it: a) the satire, because, has mentioned in previous Q&As, Monastery is a satire of small-town life, and we all know small-town folks love a good scandal; b) the humour, as I went all out in making an over-the-top situation even more over-the-top; and c) plot convenience because, as that all goes down, Francis is shooting up the Keane house and I didn’t actually want any neighbours to know and call the cops as it wouldn’t serve his arc… at this point.

3. The one storyline that I’m still wondering as to how it will tie into everything is Madam Witch and the whole first-born son hints that are very fairytale-like. Are we meant to take it as an allusion to the paranormal in this story (such as the seances they had in the previous episode) and that more is coming? As it is not outright stated since the murder mystery is the forefront with the town not really caring there’s a werewolf roaming around.

There will be a paranormal twist to the murder mystery and how it’s covered up, I promise – after all, one mustn’t forget that Cassandra owes Madam Witch – but we don’t know what she owes her for.

Advertisement

As for the werewolf, hmm… Been a while since he’s made an appearance, has it not? Wouldn’t it be a darn shame if one of our protagonists came face-to-face with him in the next episode?

Continue Reading

Book Reviews

Our Hideous Progeny Review: Frankenstein’s Dinosaur

Published

on

“It was a grey and foggy March day when we brought it to life at last. I had expected there to be thunder, or at the very least some rain; I had expected that on such a momentous occasion, Nature would be obliged to provide us with a fitting backdrop.” – pg 2, Our Hideous Progeny by C.E. McGill

Our Hideous Progeny is C.E. McGill’s debut 2023 novel and unofficial sequel to Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Like certain aquatic reptiles, McGill is already making a splash with Our Hideous Progeny being named a Best in Fiction Book of 2023. It had been on my to-read list since its release, but I’d been stalling until I read the original Frankenstein. With Poor Things and Lisa Frankenstein (both absolutely bizarre movies about women containing multitudes) hitting theaters, I finally caved and did my required reading.

Our Hideous Progeny follows Mary Sutherland, a 19th century descendant of Victor Frankenstein, striving to be a scientist. However, she is stopped by social mores, her husband’s poor decisions, and her family background. When she finds Victor Frankenstein’s journal, she sets out to not just create life, but to create a dinosaur. 

As a note, reading Frankenstein isn’t a prerequisite to enjoy Our Hideous Progeny, however it enhanced the experience. Whereas Frankenstein is about the aftermath of his experiment, Our Hideous Progeny is about the lead-up. Both contain similar themes of hubris and men defying God rather than taking responsibility for their actions. However, the focus on different moments in the experimentation provides a fresh recontextualization. Additionally, motherhood is the lens through which Our Hideous Progeny views the original story, providing additional nuance to this continuation of the narrative.

Advertised as a feminist, queer, and gothic tale about an ambitious woman in science, Our Hideous Progeny hits all those marks. However, some of those descriptors are more prevalent than others. To me, the story reads as mostly historical fiction with a splash of sci-fi and a hint of queer romance. As a queer woman in science, I really liked the book! The prose had a distinct voice that made the experience more immersive. I never doubted Mary’s voice or the time period. The characters were compelling, though in a way where I couldn’t wait for some of them to get punched. 

Advertisement

I did struggle to reopen the book at times. Mostly, this was due to a fatigue of terrible people making terrible decisions. In this way, Our Hideous Progeny sometimes felt like a 19th century r/AmITheAsshole post, in which you just want to scream at the poster to leave her husband. The situations and writing were believable and entertaining, however, emotionally draining for the mental state I was in while reading. Also, I did expect a bit more dinosaur than was present, (it is finalized at the end and not the beginning) but it wasn’t a book-ruiner for me.

I would absolutely recommend Our Hideous Progeny to those who are a fan of Frankenstein, historical fiction, and science history. Additionally, if you like angry and smart female main characters it would be a good choice too. Check out McGill’s interviews, essays, and more here!

4.6 out of 5 stars (4.6 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Book Reviews

Walnut Ridge Review: Aliens, Angels, and Taco Bell

Published

on

“One of the Angels walked past the group meeting room. It was not, of course, a real angel in biblical terms. It was a visual approximation of an angel, and that’s what they liked to be called, Angels” – pg 1, Walnut ridge by Dan Scamell

Walnut Ridge is the debut weird science fiction novel by Dan Scamell. The publisher, Dead Star Press, is based out of Phoenix and committed to “unpretentious indie publishing”, with a specialization in weird speculative fiction. A press that had long been on my radar, I was excited to review an advanced reader copy of Walnut Ridge ahead of its March 20, 2024 release!

Walnut Ridge follows a group of people trying to come to terms with a world post-alien takeover. Unlike most end-of-the-world stories, these aliens have promised utopia. As long as you’re converted into goo! The residents of Walnut Ridge, a pre-goo processing facility, must accept utopia or be left on Earth alone. Will they be granted access to the promised land? Or will they become eternal outcasts? Watch Scamell’s promo trailer below!

Video promo for Walnut Ridge from Dan Scamell’s YouTube Channel

In its simplistic form and wacky story, Walnut Ridge‘s plot and prose are reminiscent of an early Vonnegut novel. Through this, Scamell showcases the difficulties of navigating the human brain and the contradictions of human belief, behavior, and intentions. Overall, I enjoyed the plot and character arcs, with the last half of the book being particularly gripping. The plot was original, refreshing, and interesting. Aliens taking the form of angels isn’t a new concept (Ancient Aliens has entered the chat), but the way it’s executed is a creative spin. Likewise, the pop culture references aren’t overdone and play a clear role in the story. Where Walnut Ridge shines in its originality, is the almost entirely internal conflict against the backdrop of a utopia.

While Walnut Ridge reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut, I didn’t consider the prose quite as witty and humorous as I would expect from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, and a touch more explicit. This is worth mentioning for those trying to determine if Walnut Ridge is the right fit for them. The plot is spot on as something that could come straight from Vonnegut or Douglas Adams, however.

Advertisement

Scamell has described Walnut Ridge as an allegory for addiction and recovery. As someone without that personal experience, I found the characters hard to relate throughout the first half of the book. The self destructive behavior of those living in Walnut Ridge was frustrating to read. At several moments I wanted to shake the main character, Leo, and tell him to grow a spine. Other characters I wanted to shake and tell them to grow up. It is not lost on me that similar frustrations can be felt by family and friends of those going through addiction. I still haven’t decided if I like the execution of the allegory or not, but Scamell certainly left me with a lot to ponder.

I would recommend Walnut Ridge to those looking for weird speculative fiction with a positive spin. Those who have previously overcome addiction may also be particularly drawn to this story. Consider preordering Scamell’s debut novel now!

3.7 out of 5 stars (3.7 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending