Hard to say Vance is "more wrong" than his detractors ... when it seems all they say is "Nuh uh!". Let's do some quick math: many of the poorest areas of the country? Check. Some of the highest levels if drug addiction and overdose deaths over the last decades? Check. Rampant pollution? Check. Stagnant and or non-existent economies? Check. Extremely poorly educated populace? Check. Why are his detractors less wrong again? Or are they just embarrassed and see a way to make a quick buck with the current "grift it while you can" mentality gripping a large segment of our society?

Wrong in what regard? I found nothing wrong with Vance’s book. Having a similar family background to Vance, I think he has a great outlook on the matter.

I think his biggest miss was failing to connect the region to the rest of the country. He could have easily compared Appalachia to Rust Belt cities facing urban decay but never made the connection. It could have made the story of the region more approachable to more people. It seemed so obvious to me how the areas are linked by economic circumstances, environmental degradation, poor education levels, distinct culture and problems with drug addiction.

> He could have easily compared Appalachia to Rust Belt cities facing urban decay but never made the connection.

Did you and I read the same book? Most of this story is occurring in the Rust Belt[0], in Middletown, Ohio[1]. He discusses the mass Appalachian flight into Rust Belt towns and the mixing and clashing of culture.

If anything, I'm glad the author kept things largely, as the subtitle would imply, a memoir of sorts. He focuses on his family history and his life to give a face to the problem, but makes you aware that these are major problems in that community. From there you can draw your own comparison based on your experiences.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middletown,_Ohio

I think we read the same book. I don’t really think of Middletown as a Rust Belt city. It’s a town of 50,000 people. I am talking about big cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland and smaller ones like Youngstown and Erie.

As someone who lives in one of those cities, it seemed like a clear correlation could have been made. It was chance to unite a rural and an urban problem across race and I thought it was a missed opportunity. I still enjoyed the book, but think it is even more powerful when read in tandem with a book like Evicted [1] that views the problem from another perspective.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/...

So you wanted him to write a different book? Maybe he had different goals and that's fine.

Not what I said at all. I thought there was an opportunity to make a larger connection between what has happened in the Appalachian towns he focuses on and larger Rust Belt cities who face much of the same issues.

He took other opportunities. Not sure why that's a failing. Someone else can still write the book you want.

Got quotes to support this claim?