Monday, March 9, 2009

Nature vs. Nurture (Revised)

One of the more concentrated themes in Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" is the concept of nature versus nurture. I did explore this topic a little on the discussion board but wanted to delve deeper as I think it is at the core of the very rhetoric that establishes the reader's idea of a "killer". Capote used Perry as a canvas for his own distraught past and humanizes the plight of Perry's character, not as a cold blooded murder, but a sensitive boy easily swayed to the wrong path. Perry represents biological and psychological arguments as to whether or not a killer is genetically inclined or mentally disabled by histories of inadequacy. Capote says that he and Perry were like brothers, as if they were raised in the same household and essentially bore the same scars and yet, Capote is an author, and Perry, his killer contrivance. The irony exists in the juxtaposition of familiarity and the deep void of murder. Capote relates to Perry on a psychological basis. This is not unfamiliar in cases regarding child abuse, alcoholism, or any trauma that mentally scars people. However, the most interesting twist in Capote's thematic conundrum is that Dick represents something purely biological. How? His attempted rape of Nancy Clutter represents an expression of basic, even primal, power and survival. He angrily fed the physical needs of his dementia, but Perry, conversely, stopped the rape, and this represented the acknowledgment of sympathy (for the victim) and the realization of right and wrong. Perry, at this point, became both the victim and the villian, which left him torn between his emotions and his actions. The presence of Dick, however, possibly could have directed him towards a darker side and therefore proved that he was a conscious and willing participant in the murders, despite his claims of insanity. In a letter to Perry, Barbara states that it "is no shame to have a dirty face - the shame comes when you keep it dirty" (140).  This is one of the turning points in the argument for nurture. It is a resonating statement that posits the claim of what you do to others is what defines you as a person. And I think it was towards the end when Perry is about to be executed, that he apologizes and breaks down. So, is it nature or is it nuture? Any scientist will say it's a little bit of both.