For today's second socratic circle we will be breaking into two groups: the first will be our "fishbowl," leading a group discussion about Truman Capote's In Cold Blood.
After twenty minutes, we will switch roles, and group 2 will have their own discussion on an important article on these same readings, while group 1 live comments (see instructions below).
Instructions:
Audience members: in the comments section of this post, make thoughtful observations about the conversation taking place in the "fishbowl." Good observations will do the following:
- Identify when you agree/disagree with observations and specifically state why (ASR: Apt Specific Reference).
- Observe what specific group members did that helped to
- "propel" conversation forward,
- respond to their group members,
- and provide thoughtful observations.
Fishbowl members: students who do well in the "fishbowl" will do the following:
- Come to discussion prepared, having read and researched materials beforehand.
- Work with peers to promote a civil, democratic discussion, set clear goals, and establish individual roles.
- Propel conversations forward by posing and asking questions that probe reasoning and ask for evidence.
- Respond thoughtful to diverse perspectives, synthesize (combine) comments, claims, and evidence, resolve contradictions, and investigate meaning.
Amanda does a good job at starting off the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach's assessment that the long introduction made me not care about the characters.
ReplyDeleteWill brings up a good point: "was the build up effective in luring in interest."
ReplyDeleteI like what Will hit on with how we could have seen plot lines develop but will not due to the Clutter's death.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Will and Alana when they said that they liked how they built the characters a little before they died. It makes me care about their death more and more interested in finding out why they were killed. Shea made a good point by observing that the author couldn't build the characters too much because he never got to talk to them. I agree with Alana when she said that the author had to build the characters for 60 pages so the reader understands that they were good people who didn't deserve to be killed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alana's point that there isn't a clear motive. Also, Jialan's point that Capote attempted to introduce the Clutters but spent too long on that one component alone.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what Will said. I think that the newspaper article was more interesting because it left suspense. It gave you all you needed but left enough questions to keep you interested while the book, you had to look for important information and nothing really sparked strong interest.
ReplyDeleteGood job thinking on a different level, Sophie.
ReplyDeleteI like how the conversation keeps going on without too many hang ups. Thanks Sophie for stopping the back and forth about the archetypes and 60 pages of introduction.
ReplyDeleteThank god for Sophie and her transition between topics lol.
ReplyDeleteI think an introduction is really good to have but the length and detail should still be within reason...
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the people saying that the 60 pages of introduction was too much. I think that all of the information given was important so the reader can feel like they somewhat know the people. I like how Sophie asked the question of why Capote added the 60 pages of introduction. She makes a good point by saying that the 60 pages was a small amount to talk about four people's lives. I agree with Shea when he says that the family wasn't portrayed as a perfect family. The author does give some flaws. I disagree with Marc when he says that Capote just glossed over the flaws of people. He says some flaws, but he isn't going to go on and on about the flaws of people that were brutally murdered.
ReplyDeleteJilan brought up how due to how Capote learned of the Clutter's from a town that would not speak ill of the dead. This possibility makes me happy as it means that the people may not be perfect despite how Capote presents them.
ReplyDeleteAlana and Jialan bring up a good point with the fact that he is only writing what he could, what was told to him by community members .
ReplyDeleteAnd we finally get to last night's reading. Thanks Alana
ReplyDeleteI really like the last line too.
ReplyDeleteAmanda made a good observation about how the family wasn't perfect by mentioning the smell of smoke. Alana did a good job of changing the topic and moving the conversation forward. The group is doing a good job of not staying on one topic. I like how Amanda is talking about the writing and not just the story.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Marc is saying about glossing over flaws needs to be looked at with a perspective from the time it was written. This book was written about a tragedy soon after it took place, and the phrase "don't speak ill of the dead" exists for a reason.
ReplyDeleteI liked Will's use of a prediction to continue the conversation.
ReplyDeleteI think that as much as people are going into these deeper ideas as archetypes, but what if thats all they were? In the time this was set, it wasn't exactly normal to spread family problems to the whole town so the fact that the Clutters portrayed themselves as a "perfect family" would have been expected. Chances are they weren't a perfect family, but who would know about all their problems and dysfunction. Yes they are build as perfect and boring and 1 dimensional, but maybe that is what they wanted to to be seen as.
ReplyDeleteI think that the group is beginning to start the topic of how the tone and the focus of the story is changing. From introduction to dealing with deaths that no-one expected
ReplyDeleteWill did a good job of pushing the conversation forward when there was a dull. I disagree with Marc when he said that the family seemed perfect because they all had flaws. I disagree with Zach when he says that they were boring because they were all different and they were real people who had actual lives. He is summarizing the important characteristics of each character which leaves the reader to fill in the rest on their own. Sophie does a good job of drawing the conversation in to the fact that the book is mostly about the murderers. And I also love how she said that the family probably was nice, and that's why he portrayed them in that way.
ReplyDeleteSophia adds to the idea that people would describe the Clutters fondly to avoid showing motive which I really like.
ReplyDeleteI like how Amanda changed the topic and posed the question of why Capote might have had the two timelines of the family and the murderers.
ReplyDeleteEveryone in the group is doing a good job of making sure everyone is sharing their ideas.
ReplyDeleteJialan brings up a good point about the whole timeline issue.
ReplyDeleteSTEFAN: Zachary is showing his outer sociopath immediately. The group is either annoyed by the exposition/character development or they liked it. Pretty good spread of who is making comments. They are, like last class, talking about the exposition at the beginning and whether it is effective or not. Will makes a very good point about the archetypes present not existing when Capote wrote this novel. Sophie tries to move the discussion on. Didn't work very well. They are still talking about the type of people the Clutter's were. The group discusses the lack of flaws in the Clutter family. Alana moves the discussion on to last night's 3 pages of reading (Civilians cleaning up the murder). Amanda pulls a quote from the book. Shea points out the fact that 4 of Herb's hunting buddies are the people that cleaned it out. Zachary is not actually speaking. Somehow. Will backtracks to the Clutter family and points out that we might learn something about them later in the book that creates a justification for the murder. Zachary's first comment is about how the Clutter's are lame, boring, 1-dimensional, and dead. Sophie points out the fact that the Clutter's are not the main characters. People won't talk bad about people after they are dead. Amanda asks why Capote switched between Perry/Dick and the Clutter family. Shea believes it to be in order to show the difference between them. Will points out that otherwise we would know nothing about Perry and Dick, so we would have no past knowledge on them when they become the main characters.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to consolidate all of my comments into one post so here goes:
ReplyDelete1.) I disagree that the author wanted to make the reader like the family. The author high lighted the good parts of the family to show the perspective of the people who knew them and the surprise that it gave them, without building sympathy for the family because the focus is on the murderers. Basically, the author doesn't want you to care about the family, or even feel what their friends did, ather wanted the reader to understand how it would have looked/felt to the people who were there. These people would not have known the flaws, hense why they were de-emphasized (note I did not say excluded) as Marc pointed out.
Side note: Thank you Sophie for redirecting the conversation to why Capote included so much.
2.) The circle seems very hung up on the long intro to the characters. While I understand that this is pretty much all we have seen up to this point, there is a lot more to discuss in what we have read to this point.
Side note: Thanks to Alana for redirecting the conversation.
3.) I'm not sure what they burned is so much symbolism in the figurative sense, but in the literal sense. It shows a snapshot of their lives, showing how they were normal and emphasizing the fact that it was cut abruptly, but not disturbed; like cutting a tree, these items are like the rings left behind, undisturbed yet interrupted.
4.) I disagree with Will. As I stated the authors point for the long intro in my first comment, I don't think that more info will surface on such a personal level as that is detracting from the point/focus of the novel as I stated before.
5.) Overall the group seems very timid, especially Zach who is uncharacteristically so. Could be the heat I suppose, just seems different from the last circle we did in class.
6.) To Amanda's comment about the structure: To build suspense. This is seen in movies all the time to build suspense up to a turning point that is often known. I suppose it could be argued that it also shows contrast in the lives of both sets of characters but I don't see how that is important in the scope of the point of the novel as of yet.
Rothery makes a good point on how the author wanted the reader to feel sympathy for the dead people
ReplyDeleteI think that Rothery brings up a good point about Capote using his introduction of the characters to invoke emotions in his audience.
ReplyDeleteMargaret makes a good comment on how the setting was a big part. Exp: Small town back in the day and religious. We need to think of it at that time period
ReplyDeleteImma start right out and agree with Ian's comment on our discussion. Everybody just seems not to care. They're all waiting their turn and, like, just not really arguing. It seems a lot like they're all doing really short 2 minute downloads.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stefan that I think even though we have pointed it out, we haven't all fully realized the fact this this is real.
ReplyDeleteMargaret makes a good point saying that the Clutter's kind of controlled how the town viewed them in the sense that people at that time wanted to portray themselves as a good christian family
ReplyDeleteStefan's right on how there's a difference between fiction and non-fiction. There's currently not a real hero
ReplyDeleteStefan brings up how we view the real life event as we would a normal fiction book and how that skews our typical interpretation of story arcs and archetypes.
ReplyDeleteIan raises an interesting argument about how the couch is symbolic of how the Clutter's life was cut short. Although, I don't think that Capote showed this very well. It seemed more like a nostalgic remembrance of the family.
ReplyDeleteI like Stephan's comment about how the "characters" (I don't really think of them as "characters" because they were actual real people) aren't going to fit into specific archetypes and we shouldn't expect that out of a nonfiction true-crime book
ReplyDeleteRothery makes an interesting point that Capote provides support showing that the Clutters are good people; he doesn't just state "These are good people."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rothery, there is a feeling of sympathy, and it is possible that they are just genuinely good people.
ReplyDeleteMargaret is right, they can portray themselves however they want regardless of how their home lives actually were. That is probably the reason why there is not a lot of negative things said about them, they portrayed themself as good people, so that what people saw and reported.
Sam should've plead the fifth
ReplyDeleteI think before we dig too deep into the characters and delivery, we should get further along into the book.
ReplyDeleteThis group seems more opinionated and have many strong speakers but a few haven't spoken yet
ReplyDeleteI like how Margaret used a quote from last night's reading on how something so nice can change so easily
ReplyDeleteI think Mitchell said it very well, these killers are cold people who had little to no remorse or feelings. Ian offers an interesting point about killers being dehumanized, I wonder how the difference in time written vs time were reading this.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ian because if I was told someone has done something as drastic as murder, I could not see them as humans. It could be compensation to re-humanize the murderer, but it does seem a little over done.
ReplyDeleteRothery is doing a good job propelling the conversation by elaborating on people's comments and connecting them to other ideas
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mitchell. Ian's doing what I do and talking more than he should without really saying much. I get that he's trying to lead the conversation, but he's trying to lead it off of what it's become.
ReplyDeleteRothery brings up a good point that the background of the criminals make them seem more human. It makes the readers almost relate to the murderers even though they did terrible things.
ReplyDeleteTucker makes a good comment on how since this is real that situations are going to be unexpected
ReplyDeleteI like Hailie's (spelling...?) point that the author was trying to show that both of them are humans.
ReplyDeleteMitchell brings up a good point about how far we can humanize Perry and dick. At what point does making murders and other doers of such awful things #relatable.
ReplyDeletemargaret is doing a good job of making sure everyone is getting a chance to talk which helps to see all sides of the argument. I also like Ian's idea that the intro serves to prove to the readers that capote isn't trying to justify the actions of the killers
ReplyDeleteLots of profanity coming from Stefan!😱
ReplyDeleteWoah, Ian's thought on why capote wrote part 1 like how he did was an interesting take on the writing.
ReplyDeleteOne comment for all.
ReplyDeleteGood point on character arks from Stefan. On Rothery's point, they are good people but nobody is that perfect, and the glossing over flaws is kind of misleading. On Ian's point, they do mention the flaws shortly, and that would be perfect. The main problem is that he goes out of his way to try to justify why even these small flaws aren't really flaws. I agree with the point of over romanticizing of the killers, however I almost agree with dehumanizing killers. Murder is something that one cannot come back from IMO. I like the town turning on each other point, almost a Salem-esque kinda thing. Happened in our game as well. I do like the correlation between them, but I feel it was too much towards making them almost the same instead of showing the obvious difference, one murdered the other. Again, the flaw issue would have been much better if he didn't try to make their flaws not seem like flaws.
Everyone is talking although some are talking much more than others. This effect is pretty common in socratic circles and class discussions.
ReplyDeleteThe time of when the book was written is important to consider when judging it by today's literary and social standards. The common tropes and sterytopes of today were not necisarilly around then.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with highleigh (probably spelt that wrong). I don't believe that it helps to make it more real because the people feel like characters due to how one dimensional they are.
ReplyDelete