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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment