Rabbit Run Post #3

I'm pretty much agreeing with everyone here, Rene and Lara in particular. I think it's been pretty well established that Capote seemed to portray more emotion than Updike, while both had their reasonings for portraying their characters the way they did. Capote took more the role of a reporter in his book and investigated his characters extensively. Updike, on the other hand, didn't have to investigate his characters because they are merely imaginative and therefore he is free to have more liberty with creating and portraying them. I think the fact that the characters in Capote's book were obviously more real led him to "play favorites" as he did. Just like two reporters can take the same story and portray it in two different viewpoints, so Capote felt it necessary to convey his sympathy for Perry in his writing. Since he couldn't really control what the characters did as their actions are real, he merely probes into why they did what they did and what actions led up to them doing so. I think he uses his own opinion is a type of liberty in storytelling while Updike was only limited by his imagination. In response to the obsesive details that each book contains, I believe both Capote and Updike are simply giving an extensive back-story to make the character more relatable and more real. In my opinion, both succeeded, I can picture in my head a man so scared of his own failures in life that he runs from everything that bothers him just as much as I can picture a child of a disturbed childhood whose background has psychologically altered his perception of right and wrong. All in all, the more I think about both texts, the more respect I have for the stories and the way the authors tell them.