At this point in the story, everyone is familiar with the big yellow bird that appears in Perry's dreams and even sometimes in visions. This bird is considered by Perry to be a liberator, as Perry "sees" it take away his burdens. Because of this trait of the bird, I argue that Perry was not influenced by Dick to murder the Clutters, nor did he commit the act in resentment to the Clutters themselves.

The big bird was first mentionned when Perry described his childhood with the nuns, where the bird "slaughtered them as they pladed for mercy" (93). In that situation, Perry was freed from the constant pain and suffering that the nuns put him through. From there, the bird appeared in almost a pattern-like manner. It seemed to save Perry from his superiors, as many of them treated him badly. From all of this, it can safely be established that the big bird appears to Perry only when he is in need. Therefore, if Dick was manipulating him to an unbearable degree, would Perry not have desires of seeking revenge on Dick now that they were both in prison? No, Perry did not have any such feelings because Dick, being "such a coward," (255) did not advise him to murder the Clutters in the spur of the moment.

Perry also did not kill the Clutters for any particular reason. Many have argued that he wishes nothing but malice towards those who live good lives, the types of lives that Perry never had the chance to live. This, some say, caused him to kill the Clutters, because they were a well-off family who were very happy with their lives. However, this is completely false. For one thing, it is already established that the big bird is a symbol for a destroyer of all that Perry hates. He has seen this bird in dreams regarding "older children, his father, a faithless girl, a sergeant..." (93) Basically, all of Perry's dislikes and burdens are marked by the appearance of the bird. This caused me to wonder: If he truly resented the Clutters for their wealth/happiness/etc, why did he not even mention the bird when thinking of the Clutters? This is because he never hated the Clutters to begin with. Furthermore, Perry said to Don Cullivan "I was willing to take that gamble. And it wasn't because of anything the Clutters did. They never hurt me" (290). There is no clearer piece of evidence to suggest that Perry was ambivalent to the Clutters.

Regardless of Perry's true reason for his crime, whether it be insanity or anything else, he was certainly not manipulated by Dick to commit the act, and he did not kill the Clutters out of resentment or malice.

Sympathy at the End

Because part IV of ‘In Cold Blood, The Corner, is about the last chapter of Perry Smith’s and Eugene Hickock’s life, it becomes hard not to sympathize with the, and their families or loved ones.  Also, because they are going to be put to death as a consequence of an action that took the lives of a family of four, during their trial it is also hard not to sympathize with those who knew and loved the Clutter family, as they have to hear what the murders did.  This is why, in Part IV, Capote writes in an attempt for us to sympathize with the murderers, Dick and Perry, along with Mr. and Mrs. Hickock, who have to live to see their grown son be accused of four accounts of murder.  We sympathize with Dick on page 252, when Mrs. Meier ponders why Dick was ‘white as a ghost’, and thinks how terrible an experience it must be to walk amongst strangers, who know what you have done.  We sympathize with him again on page 259, when his father describes a conversation they had regarding the events that took place on that night in Holcomb, when he says that he didn’t plan on attacking them and that he should have shot Smith dead before he killed the rest of the family.  Concerning Mr. Hickock, we sympathize with him on page 281, when in the courtroom, he believes that they ‘shouldn’t even have a trial’ with such a prejudice judge.  On page 287, we feel for Dick’s mother when after she stops crying, lets a woman reporter know that, “There’s nobody I can talk to,” and when she questions if she is partially guilty because of the way she raised her child, not knowing if she did something wrong or could have prevented it.

As for Perry, we sympathize with him due to the fact that no one from his family was present for his trial and that he felt, “all by myself.  Like somebody covered with sores.  Somebody only a big nut would have anything to do with,” (260).

The Voice of Capote

After finishing Truman Capote’s captivating nonfiction novel, ‘In Cold Blood’, I came to realize how apparent the use of his storyteller voice along with his reporter voice, made the story so compelling.  In Part IV, The Corner, the transitioning between such voices to engage the audience is very present, as it is throughout the beginning of the book.  For example, on page 251, Capote introduces the Meiers, in a way that a storyteller would, in an attempt to paint a picture in the heads’ of his readers so that they can connect with them as characters and so that the characters have credibility.  This is done by describing them as, “tall people with weight and strength to spare, with wide hands, square and calm and kindly faces… Mrs. Meier, a direct and practical woman who nevertheless seems illuminated by a mystical serenity.”  This same storyteller voice is once again used in part IV, on page 263, when Capote uses metaphorical language and solid verbs and adjectives to draw the reader into the text.  For instance, “The prospect of so idyllic an interim added to the inspired stealth with which he whetted his wire, filed it to a limber stiletto fineness,” (263).  On the other hand, to give his readers the facts, of this actual event, he also often uses a voice of a reporter, giving us the facts and only the facts, and un-biased information.  This is seen on page 256 when Capote informs us, “K.B.I. agents, dispatched to Hickock’s home, found the knife inside a fishing-tackle box and the shotgun still casually propped against the kitchen wall.”  This straightforward style of writing, which is to the point, is also seen again on page 266, when Capote gives us information concerning the trial and the events concerning the trial that happened leading up to it.  “The trial was scheduled to start on March 22, 1960.  In the weeks preceding that date the defense attorneys frequently consulted the defendants… This is a religious community.  Eleven thousand population and twenty-two churches.”(266).  The combination of both styles of writing this book were a key component of what mad it so powerful.

 

The Andrews Murders Vs The Clutter Murders

At a glimpse, the murders of the Andrews family seem similar to those of the Clutters: The brutal shootings, the mental instability factor, and much else. However, once the reader discovers in detail exactly what Lowell Lee Andrews did to his family, he/she finds out that there are numerous differences between the two killings, despite how the results were strikingly similar. I would like to highlight two of the most important ones, differences that separate Andrews from Dick and Perry on a logical and personal level.
When speaking in terms of the logistics of the murder, Andrews and the Clutter murderers differed in their thinking patterns. In the case of Lowell Lee Andrews, Capote writes that "His intention was to blame the crime on thieves" (313). Andrews relied on a carefully executed alibi, which included driving to a certain place simply to convince the authorities that he had gone to pick up a typewriter. Dick and Perry, on the other hand, thought that they could escape the authorities by making a swift getaway. The result, in both cases, was that the murderers were caught because they had made a costly mistake. Andrews said "I don't care what you do with them" (314) when referring to the corpses of his family. Dick and Perry chose to relinquish their dreams of finding fortunes in Mexico, which eventually led to their capture.
The deeper difference between both cases was on the personal or moral level. As one examiner stated, Andrews "considered himself the only important, only significant person in the world" (316). He knew exactly what he was doing from the very beginning. Although certain people would argue that this worldview was derived from mental instability, it was clear that he knew right from wrong in a legal sense, which satisfies the M'Naghten Rule. Dick and Perry were quite different. Perry even said "I didn't want to harm the man [Mr. Clutter]. I thought he was a very nice gentleman" (302). Perry, from his medical exams, had a solid case of insanity, as his psychiatric doctor noted a definite presence of mental instability. Of course, he did not have an opportunity to announce these findings to the jury, so Perry and Dick were both denied any benefits that grounds of insanity could have provided. In the end, both cases concluded that the murderers clearly had a sense of right and wrong at the time of their deed.

Tone Change

In Section 3 of in Cold blood, there is a change in the tone, or attitude in which Capote addresses the murderer’s. Capote begins to formalize his “relationship” with Dick and Perry when referring to them in the third section of the book. In this section, instead of calling them “Dick” and “Perry”, he calls them “Hickock” and “Smith”. Clearly Capote is taking a more formal, reporter-like tone in this section, “Just because Smith had traveled to Kansas to visit his friend Hickock, and just because Hickock possessed a gun of the caliber used to commit the crime, and just because the suspects had arranged a false alibi to account for there whereabouts on the night of November 14, they were not necessarily the murderers” (189). Clearly one can see the way in which Capote formally refers to the murderers as “Smith and “Hickock”. But unless you compare to the quotations earlier in the book where Capote informally calls them “Dick” and “Perry”, then one cannot see the dramatic difference it actually is. For reasons unknown, Capote avidly resumes position as the reporter in the novel, this can be seen when one notes the formality in which Capote addresses the previously, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock.

After I read the first few pages of section 3, Answers, I was presented with a question. A question asking who really caused the murder. How did Perry and Dick learn about the Clutters, a random little farm family in a small little Kansas town? To me, it was a little peculiar, but after reading the first few pages, I was also presented with an answer. The answer, is fate. Fate brought the two parties, Floyd Wells and Perry + Dick. Fate put Floyd Wells drifting around the country looking for work. Fate brought him to the Clutter farm, for about a year. After that time he drifted into the army. After, he drifted into an electrical appliance store that landed him a spot in Kansas State Penitentiary. Fate also put Dick in that same cell with him. Floyd Wells even knew it was fate. He knew that if he didn't try to rob that store, this whole thing never would have happened, "Nothing came of it--'cept I drew 3-5. If I hadn't, then I never would have met Dick, and maybe Mr. Clutter wouldn't be in his grave"(161). Floyd Wells even knew it was fate. Fate caused all the events of this book. Fate brought Perry to Dick, Dick to Floyd, and Floyd to the late Mr. Clutter. Fate even brought Dick and Perry to Las Vegas. They had spent all their money in Mexico, and tried to get a good paying job but couldn't find one. Then they traveled to Miami, spent the rest of their money, and the jobs didn't pay well so they headed for Las Vegas. Fate led everything, caused everything, in this book, from the murder of the CLutters to the capture of Dick and Perry.

As we learn more about the kind of man Mr. Clutter was in “The Answer,” our admiration for him grows, making his brutal murder all the more tragic. In this section the reader is introduced to Floyd Wells, a current prisoner in the Kansas State Penitentiary and a former employee of Herb Clutter. He had worked for Mr. Clutter eleven years ago and his recollection of Herb sheds light on the kind and generous employer that Herb was. Floyd describes Mr. Clutter as an employer who treated everyone fairly, paid good wages, and would frequently give bonuses. If an employee was in need of additional money, Herb would not hesitate to help him out. Floyd says of Mr. Clutter, “I liked Mr. Clutter much as any man I ever met” (160). As Perry recounts the details of the murders, Mr. Clutter is seen as a heroic man who is not concerned about himself, but rather for the welfare of his family. After being confronted by Perry and Dick, Herb’s overriding concern is for his wife, Bonnie. He pleads with them not to bother her, telling them that Bonnie was an invalid who had been sick for a long time (238). Even after being bound and having his throat slit, a mortal wound, Herb continues to fight for his family. As Perry describes Herb after cutting his throat, “But the man had the strength of ten men-he was half out of his ropes, his hands were free” (244). Thus even while he is drowning in his own blood, Herb’s undying love for his family gives him super human strength to continue to fight for them. Capote succeeds in making the reader care deeply for Mr. Clutter, a generous and brave man, thereby making the reader genuinely pained at his vicious murder.