I
think one of the coolest parts of this book is its structure. Capote
brilliantly weaves two seemingly disjointed stories into one compact
book. But the book is not airtight. There is a case to be made here that
might suggest Capote deliberately structured In Cold Blood
in such a way so that the reader feels sympathy, not contempt, for the
killers. Look at how many times Capote mentions Perry's short legs and
soft, sweet singing voice. Look at how many times Capote reminds us that
poor Perry used to wet the bed. Look at how many times Capote shows us
Perry's horrible childhood and dysfunctional family life.
It's like saying, yes, Jack the Ripper was terrible, but (but!) he did recycle and he never forgot his mother's birthday, so...
Closely
examine the M'Naghten Rule, best described on pg. 277. Know it. Apply
that law not to Dr. Jones' testimony beginning on pg. 294, but rather,
to Capote's blatant and egregious inclusion of Jones' inadmissible
testimony, the part negated in Kansas court rooms. How can Capote get
away with sharing with his readers information the jury never learned?
Why did Capote do this? Is Capote being irresponsible? Unethical, even?
Just what is so dang important here that Capote would explain a law,
then proceed to break it right in front of our faces?