Good Vs. Evil In Truman Capote's In Cold Blood

A cultural issue that has led to many controversial topics is the stature of good versus evil. In other words, the argument suggests that novels and history itself demonstrates the blurred lines of good versus evil. In my opinion, good versus evil can never just be “good” or “evil”, but instead should be determined on the effect that the situation causes as a whole. Throughout society and in literature, the evidence to support my viewpoint is pervasive. In the novel, In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, the story first revealed Perry and Dick as “persons unknown.” Prominent to an inhuman, almost fabled importance, pure and unprovoked evil comes to destroy the serene existence of the Holcomb citizens. Capote, however, substitutes this naïve view with a more delicate interpretation, by discovering the physical, psychological, and environmental situations that cause two otherwise conventional human beings to commit such an atrocious act.
Throughout the novel, Perry and Dick are altered from cruel, cold-blooded nuisances, whose actions seem to disregard human logic, into the anxious, pathetic, completely humanized people they are at the end of the
More than once, the son seeks approval from his father that they are the "good guys" and that the "bad guys" are those who seek to hurt them--thieves, murderers, and cannibals. A symbol of the goodness in human determination and expectation is the "fire" that the father promises his son they carry. As a "good guy," the father and the son carry the fire internally, meaning that they endeavor to live under all environments. In such a world, however, the struggle between the good guys and the bad guys is not at all flawless. To the father, they are the "good guys," even though the father commits a murder for the protection of his son. The father does not contemplate acting violently in resistance of his son's survival