Comments on: In Cold Blood: William Burroughs’ Curse on Truman Capote

By: Wendy Northey

Wendy Northey — Wed, 04 Sep 2024 06:24:25 +0000

Re Capote & ‘In Cold Blood’: as a retired Forensic Psychologist, I have written hundreds of well-honed forensic reports about criminals & heinous crime.
Whilst many, if not all, make intriguing reading for those interesting in their more warped & flawed fellow beings, not one aspires to the forensic & literary heights achieved by Capote’s vivisection of a most terrible crime.
I take my hat off to him, & freely acknowledge the difference between report writing, no matter how sculptured & insightful, & literary accomplishment that transcends the prosaic. ‘In Cold Blood’ Is a masterpiece: Capote earned his escape into frivolity & addiction. I hope he enjoyed it.

By: Shaun de Waal

Shaun de Waal — Tue, 13 Oct 2020 13:10:13 +0000

SD Gordon – I wrote an MA using Burroughs and queer theory in 2003-4.

By: S.D. Gordon

S.D. Gordon — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:35:54 +0000

The journalistic style of In Cold Blood was the 1st thing I noticed when I read it. A very engaging work, but lacked voice, which is appropriate for journalism. Same goes for The Executioners’ Song by N. Mailer.
As far as Capote vs. Burroughs (as writers) is concerned, I would have to come down on the side of Burroughs for reasons far too numerous and varied to list here.
I have a certain respect for T. Capote, but tend to think that he was maybe a bit over-rated. -Nothing very ground-breaking, or particularly original. -Refined but limited.
Burroughs’ work speaks for itself, and besides being varied in terms of themes, content, and approach, I would argue that Burroughs was more honest. There is also a clear tone of (theoretical) experimentality and indirectly subtle contextually philosophical under-pinnings (“the only thing not pre-recorded in a pre-recorded universe are the pre-recordings themselves.”), virtually absent in Capote.
It comes down to taste, I suppose, but if given the choice of one writer to study, hypothetically stranded on a desert island for the rest of my life, I’d pick Burroughs.
Burroughs is out of fashion these days, which for me, means that it’s again time for another re-evaluation/examination of his work. Only this time within the scope of (emancipatory) philosophy (theory) instead of his culturally over-determined public and private sexuality. Seriously, who cares? It’s (theoretically contingent sexual indicators) already been more than adequately covered.
Maybe this is obvious, but the more I read Zizek (and to a lesser extent, Ronell), the more I think that Burroughs has been curiously over-looked; I find more than just a slight overlap between Burroughs’ work and current philosophical/cultural theory.
Burroughs never made any directly philosophical claims that I’m aware of, but the structures are there in the work.
I’m way off point now, so I’ll stop here and look into Queer Theory before I say something I can’t defend.

By: Poze

Poze — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 18:22:33 +0000

I saw a press screening of this film recently, and was highly impressed by its moving account of the period in Truman Capote’s life during which he wrote ‘In Cold Blood’. The direction by the relatively unknown Bennett Miller is personal, evocative and affecting, but without being over-dramatic or saccharine. This is helped immensely by Philip Seymour Hoffmann’s incredible performance as Capote, as well as solid acting from Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr., and Chris Cooper. Cooper plays K.B.I. Agent Alvin Dewey with perhaps a bit too much intensity, given his relatively small amount of screen time, but the portrayal nonetheless comes off as heart-felt.

The cinematography by Adam Kimmel is suitably gray and moody, with many evocative views of the flat Kansas plains, but most of the screen time is spent with the camera focused on Hoffmann – all of it time well spent.

While I haven’t read the biography by Gerald Clarke on which it’s based, the script seems to hit enough salient details to evoke Capote’s frame of mind, without inundating the audience with more than would fit in a feature-length film. I suppose one of my only complaints about the film would be that at times the conversations take on a sheen of Hollywood, saying things for dramatic impact that perhaps might not have been said in real life. But then again, I never met Capote, so who knows for sure.

All in all, this was a deeply engrossing film, and one I would highly recommend, especially if you’re a fan of Truman Capote.

By: August

August — Tue, 12 Aug 2014 22:09:31 +0000

Burroughs was a hater. Never liked his work. Did not have the caustic wit to match Truman’s. Not even close. He seemed a very bitter man.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Thu, 22 May 2014 22:57:08 +0000

By what logic is it Capote’s responsibility to “save” cold blooded killers just because interviewed them? Even though he saw their tragedy, he seemed to know they still had to pay for their crimes. And it had to be a terrible emotional position to be in. But that’s the grown-up world. He may never have recovered (especially from watching the execution)because he’d bonded with Smith. No curse was necessary. That’s enough to conflict and haunt him, or anyone with a soul, for life.
What curse? All I see is Burroughs childishly dripping of jealously.

By: Marc Furstenberg

Marc Furstenberg — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 23:51:09 +0000

Gee, I always thought it was me. I was selling an underground paper, The Seed, in front of the Picasso statue in the Civic Center one cold winter’s night and I saw this little mound of fur approach me, and it was Truman Capote. I offered him a copy, “Chicago Seed, Mr. Capote? He literally turned his nose up at the offer, flouncing away, saying, I never read those, the writing is always so bad, mincing off into the Chicago darkness. I wondered why a famous and successful writer would take the energy to insult some young guy like that, and I cursed him.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:46:35 +0000

Furthermore, you can now read the full letter at the excellent “Letters of Note” blog (which brought me here in the first place).

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/this-is-my-last-visit.html

Thanks for a wonderful, informative post! If only they’d channeled that tabloidesque hatred into creative work…

By: Phen

Phen — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 06:23:54 +0000

“credulous believer”

Redundant and insulting. Burroughs was not a “credulous believer” in “curses” “at the time.” He was a practicing occultist, exuberant member of several occult organizations, and one of the key instigators of Chaos Magick. He wrote and lectured openly and frequently on magic, consciousness and the occult straight through to the end of his life. It was one of the primary influences on his work, with Gnosticism in particular informing virtually everything he wrote. That so many literary essayists and biographers are embarrassed on his behalf and feel the need to apologetically downplay this aspect of his life just shows us how ignorant and pathetically frightened of social disapproval these people are. Is it really so painfully and personally embarrassing that someone you admire believed something you don’t? At least “believed” is the way you’d phrase it from your point of view. I think it could be much more accurately stated that he knew something you don’t know.

By: conntexxt

conntexxt — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 03:59:01 +0000

Burroughs’ letter to Capote…

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/william_burroughs_cold-blooded_letter_to_truman_capote