In Cold Blood Language Analysis

In A Cold Manipulation Of Language, Melissa W. Noel analyzes Capote’s In Cold Blood to help students develop an awareness of the author's’ intentions and to understand how writers use language to change readers perspectives (Noel 51). According to the March 2011 edition of the English Journal, authors will habitually use literary devices like “tone, diction, syntax, attitude, and style” to manipulate language in order to have their desired effect on the intended audience, much like Henry James does in the Turn of the Screw (Noel 51). A literary device James uses frequently throughout the Turn of the Screw is ambiguity, a term coined to describe when a phrase or word has more than one meaning. The way James constructs sentences is done very

Depending on how the story has been analyzed, the governesses’ intentions vary from interpretation to interpretation. While some readers will vehemently insist that the governess is in fact seeing these apparitions, others stress that her odd infatuation with the master of the house, whom she had seen “only twice” is what causes this reaction to occur because she seeks to impress him by “saving” her charges from “possession.” It can even be inferred that the apparitions are merely a reflection of her imagination and that she has simply gone insane. Whatever her intentions are, the mere fact that the reader is beginning to question her observations shows that her credibility has been seriously compromised. It’s important to note that these interpretations are all well founded on evidence that James has hinted at throughout the novel. This serves as further corroboration of his skillful use of manipulation to shape the way a reader perceives the text. When the governess is describing her first interaction with Miss Jessel, one would only arrive to the conclusion that the governess had seen a ghost on the other side of the lake, and that Flora had also seen this apparition, but chose to hide her awareness of it. Upon further review, it is revealed that the governess had constructed the entire event. At the time the governess had become aware of the third person she was “without direct vision” of it (James 48). It is even implied that she knew what she was going to observe before she lifted her head because she had found herself “forming as to what I should see” (James 49). When the governess says “nothing was more natural than that these things should be the other things that they absolutely were not,” she is essentially giving you information without knowing what it is she is actually describing (James 49). Even the governess question her own