How much of Truman Capote’s non-fiction classic, In Cold Blood, is not true? A recent Wall Street Journal article brings to light material that contradicts certain aspects of the story in terms of the timeline.
Recently several classic works of non-fiction have been exposed as containing small or very large amounts of fiction. First, John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley was examined with a critical investigative eye and found to contain vastly fictionalized accounts. The recent re-publication acknowledge this, and the book really ca be seen more as a work of fiction. Then, recently an investigation into the famous Kitty Genovese slaying in New York uncovered potential errors. This time the published made no changes or disclaimers. There are other similar incidents of non-fiction accounts later debunked, but few as memorable as these.
If the Kansas material become available to scholars, will it result in changes to future editions of In Cold Blood, possibly a mention in an introduction? The book is compellingly written, a masterpiece in prose and style. The movie, stark and brutal. The story? Maybe not exactly 100% true. The truth is, every work of non-fiction contains choices made for dramatic reasons. Truth may be stranger than fiction, but sometimes the narrative doesn’t always flow as quickly and smoothly downhill as the writer wants, and small or big changes are made. In Steinbeck’s case no one questioned his story, possibly because he was driving solo across the country and no one bothered to verify his facts. In Capote’s case, other motives were at play. And the Kitty Genovese story made for powerful copy about callous New Yorkers, emblematic of the cold city.
