30/07/2024
I just finished my second go-round of Hillbilly Elegy. Here are my quick take-aways.
A.) I think it barely qualifies as a memoir. It read more like he was trying to objectively explain problems that he had observed from his upbringing, and then added bits from his own life almost as an afterthought. He used his own observations, a bit of history about the areas that were being discussed (eastern Kentucky and southwest Ohio), and reliable statistics that seemed to corroborate what he was saying. While there were plenty of his family anecdotes that clearly illustrated the dysfunction within his own family, the layout of the book itself felt disjointed. Memoirs flow more like a story than a dissertation.
2.) One of the major critiques that some Appalachians have about Vance is the idea that he blames Appalachians for the problems in Appalachia, ignoring the role that coal mines and other sources from outside of Appalachia had on its people. As I went through the book this time, I really had my feelers out for that type of sentiment. And, I'll be honest - I didn't find it. Not exactly. The closest thing that I found was a quote that Vance used toward the end of the book.
He was talking about the fact that his mom had had many fresh starts, and had been bailed out of problems many times by her parents in the past. At this juncture in the story, Vance himself was able to be there for his mom and pay for her to have a place to stay while she was still in active addiction. While he was glad he was at a stage in his life where he could help his mom, he realized he was enabling her. This quote of his stuck out to me:
"No person's childhood gives them a perpetual, moral 'get out of jail free' card."
I can see how some of my friends could view that perspective as being a bit cold toward people in addiction. And, personally, I know that I have no right to have an opinion on how Vance - or anyone - handles their own family in such delicate situations. But for myself, I see his point. While we can't discount a person's upbringing when it comes to why they are the way that they are, that past should have little impact on the way such things are adjudicated. We can't help what was. We have to handle what is, with the hopes that in the meantime, a rockbottom of sorts will come, and then a path forward and upward and outward will emerge.
D.) While I have focused primarily on the book itself, I still had many people who responded to my previous posts who wanted to talk about how Vance's stances on a lot of topics seem to have changed in the years since the book came out. This is a valid line of questioning to bring up.
The book was published in 2016, a full eight years ago at this point. He was 31 at the time.
One of the vignettes that stuck out to me is how he handled his never ending parade of step-dads in and out of his life. He spoke of one step-dad that had an earring. That step-dad convinced JD it would be cool for JD to have an earring, so he pierced JD's ear. The next step-dad thought that earrings made a boy look like a sissy, so JD took the earring out. Whatever step-dad was in his life at the moment, he acted like he liked the things the respective step-dad did. He notes that did he really like those things or even those guys? Sometimes, definitely not! But he was dealing with what was his reality at the moment, and that kept things most peaceful in his home at those particular times.
Does this make him a sycophant? I think that's the definition. But also, it's the story of a kid who had a tumultuous home life, and was just trying to make it through the night without the police being called. Maybe I'm leaning toward Vance a little bit more than I need to on this one, but I see his perspective on this part:
Having grown up with his particular upbringing which was so vastly different than his life at Yale, he was forced to look at his life in Middletown and Jackson under a microscope. He had to step to the side of his life and meta-analyze what made him tick. He showed plenty of examples where his adjustment to what many of us would consider "normal" was difficult and jarring for him. Honestly, I get it.
Bonus: He takes a lot of time in the book to make it very clear that he was loved and cared for as a kid. That love and care was not gentle and was not something that many of us would choose, but his strong ties to his family and knowing he was always loved fiercely have contributed greatly to his success. I like that he doesn't act like he made it to where he is by his own merit. It was a very specific set of circumstances that brought him to the heights he has reached. He seems to owe his success to his family and the way he was raised.
What do you think? What did I miss? I'm always open for discussion. ❤
