Catchin' up numbaaa 2

Okay so really I know I should've gave "In Cold Blood" a chance, but I found it really hard; that type of horror and writing of the story = not my favorite. The way he writes is just to full into detail and hard to get through in my opinion, like you have to read the same paragraph over and over again. For example, in the first chapter (I don't have my book with me at the moment- I will put a quote when I get home) but the way he describes the setting is too much. Don't get me wrong it's good to have some detail but to the point where your making something that should be maybe ten lines fourty? Enough is enough, say it already! However, although it's full of detail it's basically a small shade of the truth of a some things that aren't even true. If you're writing a story about a true event I think it's only right to write what happened and what happened only- the truth and nothing but the truth!

What are the benefits of taking a true account and writing it in a fictional way?
-Everyone knows that by adding a little of your own spice to a story and small details that didn't really happen can make for a better more juicy story.

What are the negatives?
-It's a lie and somewhat offensive to others! You get some guy who knows nothing about the family or the killers coming down to your town and poking his nose where it doesn't belong and then adding in some lies to make for a better story is offensive especially to those who knew the family or what really happened.

catchin' up!

Who knew that J.D. Salinger used basic concepts from his life to help him write his own award winning novel "Catcher and the Rye"? As I did a little research, I came across quite a few similarities between the two. One obvious relationship between the main character J.D. Salinger himself attended private schools for some time and he too had a hard time adjusting- just like Holden's character in "Catcher in the Rye". It was said in an article "He left the school after only one semester. Obviously an intelligent and sensitive man, Salinger apparently did not respond well to the structure and rigors" much like how Holden couldn't deal with the way schools were run. Besides small similarities like that, there was on thing that really stood out to me. Both Holden and Salinger suffered through life with some type of scarring/changing experience. After the death of his brother, Holden could not cope with it and it changed the way he lived/acted/thought for basically the rest of his life. I'm sure Holden never really thought about life after death or death itself until his brother died. "Boy, when you're dead, they really fix you up. I hope to hell when I do die somebody has sense enough to just dump me in the river or something. Anything except sticking me in a goddam cemetery. People coming and putting a bunch of flowers on your stomach on Sunday, and all that crap. Who wants flowers when you're dead? Nobody." It's said the J.D. Salinger entered the army during World War 2 and although it is not said that he had problems or differences in his life afterwards- a thing like being part of the army and being out on the field and fighting for your country, seeing people die, etc. most likely had to have an effect on Salingers life in some way whether it be attitude, perspectives, etc.
"http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ro-Sc/Salinger-J-D.html"