Agree with J8's impression of Vance. (He is an author and potential candidate for public office)
My opinion of the book, which I did enjoy reading, and the author's intent, is that he thinks he portrayed a thing, but that's not what it may look like to others.
I sense that he thinks he portrayed a people that he feels were hard done-by and sacrificed a lot and did the best they could with their tough lot in life; and he managed to rise above the poverty by correcting the few shortcomings, while keeping the wonderful warm hillbilly values.
But when I read what he wrote, I saw a people who were hard done by in some ways, had absolutely no sense at all of the people who were hardER done by, felt they deserved a lot and blamed others when they didn't get it. I saw a people who when they made some choices they considered they were victims of a system and when they looked at others making analogous choices, thought of them as and weak and immoral.
I saw an author - a family member - who thought grandma brashly going in to a pharmacy with a gun and an attitude was a *gutsy and independent and empowering* kind of move, while I saw a lawless bully lashing out with indignation who thought might-made-right and glorified the violence as success.
On the whole, I saw a fairly candid description of the way certain socio-economic groups live and the hardships they face, side by side with a refusal to grant the same to others; and a sense of entitlement that claims victimhood for the in-group and no one else. It was candid, I will grant it that, and that made for interesting reading. I just don't think it portrayed the sympathetic protagonists that the author thought it would, because he is still unable to see that his tale is universal, not unique, and certainly not superlative.
