TOPIC(S) and/or EVENT(S)
2. The author chose to write about this topic because he was there when the newspaper he worked for received the first letter. He was just a cartoonist there but he decoded the first message and shortly after became obsessed with finding out who the Zodiac killer was.
3. I chose this book because the whole mystery of the Zodiac really interested me and when I heard there was a book of it I had to read it. I knew a little bit about the Zodiac but I wanted to know more so I just went to the library and found the book. The mystery and suspense of it all was what kept me interested in the book. One thing that I always looked forward too was the messages the killer would send to the newspapers.
4. I found the book very realistic. One of the reasons I found it so realistic was the fact that the man who wrote it was there through the whole thing. It did not make any connections to things I have read about or seen but it did help me understand the whole story better. I had known several things about the Zodiac before but the book connected everything together and made sense of the whole thing. The book did a really good job of telling the story how I think it really happened.
PEOPLE
1. I think if we met the characters in this very true story that we might see them differently than Robert Graysmith. I imagine some to be more caring and some to be more greedy and only wanting fame out of the situation. For example, I think some of the news reporters only wanted their fifteen minutes of fame and didn't care whether justice was brought to the culprit or not while the detectives actually cared and wanted the killer off the streets. I think the author portrayed the characters as lighter versions of themselves because in his world their was only one bad person and that was the Zodiac as he became obsessed. Graysmith chose to write this book because no one figured out who the Zodiac killer was so he decided to write a book with all the facts and say who he thought, rather knew it was. Who he thought it was was Arthur Leigh who happened to be the number one suspect until his death. The authors tone seems to be aggressive and motivated toward what he is talking about. I think this says that he is a hard worker and when he gets involved with something he becomes obsessed and doesn't stop until he figures it out.
2. Robert Graysmith, the author, is a medium build guy and had facial hair when the Zodiac killings start and all the way through the writing of the book. He had OCD which is one of the main reasons why he became so obsessed with the Zodiac and his puzzles. If I were to write him as a fictional character I would use direct characterization and describe him as a simple cartoonist who in his spare time obsessed over the stories that came in and didn't stop until he or the police figured them out. Arthur Leigh, the number one suspect for the case was a large build man who didn't have any hair for most of the photos of him. He wore military boots that you could only get with a military license from a military store and walked with a limp. For one of his killings he was described as wearing what seemed to be a black bag over his head and a black piece of cloth that he wore over his neck and upper torso that had the zodiac sign on it. He also wore a long sleeve shirt under the piece of clothing, gloves, ray-ban sunglasses, and black pants when he committed this specific murder. When he was talked to with detectives he had a very shifty attitude and way of wording things and that alone made him a prime suspect. If I were to write him as a fictional character I would use indirect characterization and let his own thoughts and horrible actions describe him. For example I would go into detail about what he was thinking when he was committing murders and writing his puzzles.
3. These people are interesting enough to write about because Graysmith seems like an unimportant person but then becomes the person that ties all of the clues together to almost prove that Arthur Leigh is the killer. The detectives did a lot of work but Graysmith put it all together to make sense of all the information. As for Arthur Leigh, he is an interesting character because he was the prime suspect for one of the most notorious serial killers in history. He even had a history where he molested students of his class when he was a teacher. He was a very messed up guy and there is no surprise that Arthur Leigh could very well be the Zodiac killer.
MORE ON CHARACTER/PEOPLE
1. One example of direct characterization is how the author described Paul Avery, a writer for the newspaper that Robert Graysmith was the cartoonist for. He was described as a drunk who just wanted his fame and didn't seem to care if there was justice brought to the killer or not. He was drunk too often at work so they had to let him go and he went to a lower ranked newspaper and began writing there. Another example of direct characterization is how the writer described David Toschi. He was described as a hard working family man. He didn't have any kids but he had a wife that he loved very much. He worked homicide for most of his career and was good at what he did. He was the one assigned to the Zodiac case for the longest time and the author said he was compelled to solve the case but went crazy and almost gave up when he couldn't. An example of indirect characterization would be how the Zodiac killer wrote his messages and puzzles for the newspapers. He wrote his words in a unique way, for example he wrote Christmas with two S's at the end of it and so did Arthur Leigh. Without anyone telling you, you can tell that whoever the Zodiac killer was could write puzzles that stump the best code crackers and he was smart when it came to being elusive and mysterious. Another example would be how Arthur Leigh was described by the detectives who talked to him. They basically said that he was sketchy and even though he had his story straight, there was something about him that made him seem suspicious. He also had pigeons in his home so that showed that he was a vile man and didn't care what was living with him.
2. No, the authors syntax doesn't really change when focusing on the main character. It seems to stay the same through the whole story but I feel it changes a bit when he is talking about how he did the murders. I feel like he has some respect for the deceased but still makes it informative providing all the information he can about the murder.
3. The protagonist is static through most of the story. He is pretty much completely taken in by the case and it even ruins relationships for him. It seems to be all he cares about until the end of the book where he is living with is wife and kids and the case is pretty much over. He also stopped receiving phone calls when Arthur Leigh died of a heart attack and that made him feel relieved and he changed around then to focus on his family more.
4. When the Zodiac killed two teenagers on December 20, 1968 with .22 caliber semiautomatic J.C. Higgins Model 80 I felt like I was reading a character. I know it really happened but it seems like something that would only happen in movies or in fictional books. When I read it I was suddenly pulled out of the nonfiction book and put in to a fictional book. It's hard to describe but I felt as though it didn't really happen when I read it. It was a unique feeling.
STYLE
1. The author didn't really use any textual tools such as symbolism or foreshadowing. It was a more journalistic style because the information in the book is based on facts and it even has the dates of each day the events occurred on. Even though he wasn't a writer he was still very thorough with his work and factual evidence.
2. The author uses somewhat lengthy descriptions when describing places or people but it's mostly what was said in police reports and news articles. I would say that he mostly focuses on dialogue and especially actions. A lot happens in the book whether it's in the past or the present and he relies on describing events as they most likely happened and creates a more real feel to the book. It makes the book more informative rather than focusing on an entertaining aspect but it still keeps it entertaining just in a more real way.
3. The author uses the natural mystery of the story to create an ominous tone that can be uncomfortable and eerie at times. It's a natural mystery because that's what the Zodiac was going for. How Graysmith describes everything was how it actually happened so he didn't have to create a mysterious feeling, it just happened.
4. I think the author's attitude towards the subject was something to be admired. True he did mess up relationships by focusing on it too heavily but I think how hard he worked on the book and the crime was amazing. He didn't stop until he figured it out and a lot of people gave up years before he did. He wanted to get his information out there to the world and he thought the best way to do that would be to publish a book describing it all. He wanted to inform the world about what he found and make sure as many people knew as he could. I think his driving force was that everyone else gave up so he had to be the one to discover who it really was and to make sure people knew his name.
5. The author offers a plethora of news articles, interviews, police reports, and historical documents because that's pretty much all the book is. The whole book talks about how the police figured out what they did and how the newspapers described what was happening. It helped that he worked at a newspaper so he could get information right as it came in. He even got to read the codes sent in before they were even published. I think it mattered in my thinking because it verified the information that the author wrote down. It helped me make sense of it all.
ENDURING MEMORY
One idea from the book that I think will stick with me for a long time is how hard Robert Graysmith worked to write the book. I know it isn't really about the book but I think it is important to recognize how determined he was to find out who the killer was even if he couldn't help it. When everyone gave up he kept researching and digging deeper to find facts and evidence that could put him away forever. It's almost something out of an inspirational movie because I don't think it would have mattered if everyone gave up including him but he didn't because he wanted to prove that it was Arthur Leigh. He wrote another book and even if his career wasn't in writing, Zodiac Unmasked was his life's work.
1. I think if we met the characters in this very true story that we might see them differently than Robert Graysmith. I imagine some to be more caring and some to be more greedy and only wanting fame out of the situation. For example, I think some of the news reporters only wanted their fifteen minutes of fame and didn't care whether justice was brought to the culprit or not while the detectives actually cared and wanted the killer off the streets. I think the author portrayed the characters as lighter versions of themselves because in his world their was only one bad person and that was the Zodiac as he became obsessed. Graysmith chose to write this book because no one figured out who the Zodiac killer was so he decided to write a book with all the facts and say who he thought, rather knew it was. Who he thought it was was Arthur Leigh who happened to be the number one suspect until his death. The authors tone seems to be aggressive and motivated toward what he is talking about. I think this says that he is a hard worker and when he gets involved with something he becomes obsessed and doesn't stop until he figures it out.
2. Robert Graysmith, the author, is a medium build guy and had facial hair when the Zodiac killings start and all the way through the writing of the book. He had OCD which is one of the main reasons why he became so obsessed with the Zodiac and his puzzles. If I were to write him as a fictional character I would use direct characterization and describe him as a simple cartoonist who in his spare time obsessed over the stories that came in and didn't stop until he or the police figured them out. Arthur Leigh, the number one suspect for the case was a large build man who didn't have any hair for most of the photos of him. He wore military boots that you could only get with a military license from a military store and walked with a limp. For one of his killings he was described as wearing what seemed to be a black bag over his head and a black piece of cloth that he wore over his neck and upper torso that had the zodiac sign on it. He also wore a long sleeve shirt under the piece of clothing, gloves, ray-ban sunglasses, and black pants when he committed this specific murder. When he was talked to with detectives he had a very shifty attitude and way of wording things and that alone made him a prime suspect. If I were to write him as a fictional character I would use indirect characterization and let his own thoughts and horrible actions describe him. For example I would go into detail about what he was thinking when he was committing murders and writing his puzzles.
3. These people are interesting enough to write about because Graysmith seems like an unimportant person but then becomes the person that ties all of the clues together to almost prove that Arthur Leigh is the killer. The detectives did a lot of work but Graysmith put it all together to make sense of all the information. As for Arthur Leigh, he is an interesting character because he was the prime suspect for one of the most notorious serial killers in history. He even had a history where he molested students of his class when he was a teacher. He was a very messed up guy and there is no surprise that Arthur Leigh could very well be the Zodiac killer.
MORE ON CHARACTER/PEOPLE
1. One example of direct characterization is how the author described Paul Avery, a writer for the newspaper that Robert Graysmith was the cartoonist for. He was described as a drunk who just wanted his fame and didn't seem to care if there was justice brought to the killer or not. He was drunk too often at work so they had to let him go and he went to a lower ranked newspaper and began writing there. Another example of direct characterization is how the writer described David Toschi. He was described as a hard working family man. He didn't have any kids but he had a wife that he loved very much. He worked homicide for most of his career and was good at what he did. He was the one assigned to the Zodiac case for the longest time and the author said he was compelled to solve the case but went crazy and almost gave up when he couldn't. An example of indirect characterization would be how the Zodiac killer wrote his messages and puzzles for the newspapers. He wrote his words in a unique way, for example he wrote Christmas with two S's at the end of it and so did Arthur Leigh. Without anyone telling you, you can tell that whoever the Zodiac killer was could write puzzles that stump the best code crackers and he was smart when it came to being elusive and mysterious. Another example would be how Arthur Leigh was described by the detectives who talked to him. They basically said that he was sketchy and even though he had his story straight, there was something about him that made him seem suspicious. He also had pigeons in his home so that showed that he was a vile man and didn't care what was living with him.
2. No, the authors syntax doesn't really change when focusing on the main character. It seems to stay the same through the whole story but I feel it changes a bit when he is talking about how he did the murders. I feel like he has some respect for the deceased but still makes it informative providing all the information he can about the murder.
3. The protagonist is static through most of the story. He is pretty much completely taken in by the case and it even ruins relationships for him. It seems to be all he cares about until the end of the book where he is living with is wife and kids and the case is pretty much over. He also stopped receiving phone calls when Arthur Leigh died of a heart attack and that made him feel relieved and he changed around then to focus on his family more.
4. When the Zodiac killed two teenagers on December 20, 1968 with .22 caliber semiautomatic J.C. Higgins Model 80 I felt like I was reading a character. I know it really happened but it seems like something that would only happen in movies or in fictional books. When I read it I was suddenly pulled out of the nonfiction book and put in to a fictional book. It's hard to describe but I felt as though it didn't really happen when I read it. It was a unique feeling.
STYLE
1. The author didn't really use any textual tools such as symbolism or foreshadowing. It was a more journalistic style because the information in the book is based on facts and it even has the dates of each day the events occurred on. Even though he wasn't a writer he was still very thorough with his work and factual evidence.
2. The author uses somewhat lengthy descriptions when describing places or people but it's mostly what was said in police reports and news articles. I would say that he mostly focuses on dialogue and especially actions. A lot happens in the book whether it's in the past or the present and he relies on describing events as they most likely happened and creates a more real feel to the book. It makes the book more informative rather than focusing on an entertaining aspect but it still keeps it entertaining just in a more real way.
3. The author uses the natural mystery of the story to create an ominous tone that can be uncomfortable and eerie at times. It's a natural mystery because that's what the Zodiac was going for. How Graysmith describes everything was how it actually happened so he didn't have to create a mysterious feeling, it just happened.
4. I think the author's attitude towards the subject was something to be admired. True he did mess up relationships by focusing on it too heavily but I think how hard he worked on the book and the crime was amazing. He didn't stop until he figured it out and a lot of people gave up years before he did. He wanted to get his information out there to the world and he thought the best way to do that would be to publish a book describing it all. He wanted to inform the world about what he found and make sure as many people knew as he could. I think his driving force was that everyone else gave up so he had to be the one to discover who it really was and to make sure people knew his name.
5. The author offers a plethora of news articles, interviews, police reports, and historical documents because that's pretty much all the book is. The whole book talks about how the police figured out what they did and how the newspapers described what was happening. It helped that he worked at a newspaper so he could get information right as it came in. He even got to read the codes sent in before they were even published. I think it mattered in my thinking because it verified the information that the author wrote down. It helped me make sense of it all.
ENDURING MEMORY
One idea from the book that I think will stick with me for a long time is how hard Robert Graysmith worked to write the book. I know it isn't really about the book but I think it is important to recognize how determined he was to find out who the killer was even if he couldn't help it. When everyone gave up he kept researching and digging deeper to find facts and evidence that could put him away forever. It's almost something out of an inspirational movie because I don't think it would have mattered if everyone gave up including him but he didn't because he wanted to prove that it was Arthur Leigh. He wrote another book and even if his career wasn't in writing, Zodiac Unmasked was his life's work.
No comments:
Post a Comment