I agree with Jessicca and Jason that Capote definitely was more passionate about his novel than Updike. Obviously it is because he could meet the characters and didn't have to create, but rather embelish on their lives. That was ideal for Capote's success, Updike has written many books (Glass Menagerie, etc.) where he creates his story and it reads well for the purpose of a class on literature. I think Capote's piece is obviously more intense and interesting, but he definitely has an advantage in that he got to not only invision things, but confirm his thoughts in person. Updike also I feel didn't really challenge himself to develop the storyline or some of the characters, he focuses on details of the scenario and the background of the main characters, but almost too much so. He leaves nothing up to the imagination in a way. Some readers find this comfortable, especially how in the end he keeps running, I however do not. I figured that would happen, but in a way wanted a real ending I mean Updike had lead us detail to detail so far he may as well write it off, you know? Anyways I wrote this much like a critic because that's how I thought was the most effective. Honestly I don't mind Updike I just think he reads a lot the same. I predict eventually he won't be as popular because I don't think the diversity in his writing is provacative and will stand the test of time to other favorites.