Skip to main content

I’ve been reading Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” for years, and I’m bored.

In cold blood - F For Fact

This is the edition I’m reading.

My grandmother (Mimi) loved it. But she lived during the time and experienced the shock of there being people out there who were like that – killers’ lives finally documented.

Beyond that, what’s the appeal? The story puts me to sleep. (It is on my bedside table.) I’m on page 165. I was on page 127 two years ago.

Sure, that could be part of the problem, but I say, “Uh-uh” (and shake my head like a two year old being fed nonsense food). Because all three movie renderings are boring. (Or, at least, not commanding my attention. I suppose “In Cold Blood” is better than “Capote” or “Infamous.”)

And I’m confused. The 1959 murders were published in Capote’s choppy 1966 book. But Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rope” (1948) and “Compulsion” with Orson Welles (1959) preceded any of Capote’s critically-acclaimed crap. And those two movies were also based on real-life cold murderers (Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb) from the 1920’s.

When in doubt, have Hitchcock or Welles about.

NOTE: At least Truman Capote was a more articulate writer than me … myself … than I am.

Dan Jones

Author Dan Jones

More posts by Dan Jones