What do you think?
Rate this book
Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillbilly Elegy
2020 American Book Award winner, Walter & Lillian Lowenfels Criticism AwardWeatherford Award winner, nonfictionWith hundreds of thousands of copies sold, a Ron Howard movie in the works, and the rise of its author as a media personality, J. D. Vance’s Hillbilly A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis has defined Appalachia for much of the nation. What about Hillbilly Elegy accounts for this explosion of interest during this period of political turmoil? Why have its ideas raised so much controversy? And how can debates about the book catalyze new, more inclusive political agendas for the region’s future?
Appalachian Reckoning is a retort, at turns rigorous, critical, angry, and hopeful, to the long shadow Hillbilly Elegy has cast over the region and its imagining. But it also moves beyond Hillbilly Elegy to allow Appalachians from varied backgrounds to tell their own diverse and complex stories through an imaginative blend of scholarship, prose, poetry, and photography. The essays and creative work collected in Appalachian Reckoning provide a deeply personal portrait of a place that is at once culturally rich and economically distressed, unique and typically American. Complicating simplistic visions that associate the region almost exclusively with death and decay, Appalachian Reckoning makes clear Appalachia’s intellectual vitality, spiritual richness, and progressive possibilities.
Appalachian Reckoning is a retort, at turns rigorous, critical, angry, and hopeful, to the long shadow Hillbilly Elegy has cast over the region and its imagining. But it also moves beyond Hillbilly Elegy to allow Appalachians from varied backgrounds to tell their own diverse and complex stories through an imaginative blend of scholarship, prose, poetry, and photography. The essays and creative work collected in Appalachian Reckoning provide a deeply personal portrait of a place that is at once culturally rich and economically distressed, unique and typically American. Complicating simplistic visions that associate the region almost exclusively with death and decay, Appalachian Reckoning makes clear Appalachia’s intellectual vitality, spiritual richness, and progressive possibilities.
432 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 13, 2019
310 people are currently reading
6268 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews
February 23, 2019
When Hillbilly Elegy came out, it landed like a thunderclap, perhaps because it was released during the 2016 election and was perceived as an explanation of the inexplicable popularity of Donald Trump. I put it on hold at the library, but before I read it, I listened to a few interviews with him on television and canceled my hold on the book. It was clear he was just one more advocate for abandoning the poor, only this pathologizing the white working class of Appalachia based solely on his own family experience. Nonetheless, the stereotypes in Vance’s book have proven popular and enduring, so I was very interested in reading Appalachian Reckoning, a collection of responses to the book, from academic rebuttals and personal essays to poetry and photography.
From the Protestant Work Ethic to the Prosperity Gospel, the god everyone worships is wealth and the greatest sin is poverty. America’s civic religion is Horation Algerism. This makes it very profitable to comfort the comfortable by telling them they need not feel compassion for those who struggle because it’s their own fault, their bad choices, their addiction to drugs, their failure to get a good job, and their cultural poverty. We hear it again with every generation and Vance hit a sweet spot just in time. We who are on the left and right can have smug contempt for Trump voters because they are uneducated, racist, lazy, hillbillies on opioids. According to R. C. Hutton points out “the book is aimed not at that underclass (few books are), but rather at a middle- and upper-class readership more than happy to learn that white American poverty has nothing to do with them or with any structural problems in American economy and society and everything to do with poor white folks’ inherent vices.” Yup.
Appalachian Reckoning restores the variety, vitality, and value of the people of Appalachia. The book includes several poems and photos and personal essays recounting the richness of that culture. The people of Appalachia are not culturally deficient. How much of our cultural heritage is sourced in those mountains? These are people who dared strike against the coal barons, whose Peabody coal strike is memorialized in song and film, and whose culture has fostered the Foxfire Magazine and book series (My parents had all the books.) Country music would not exist without its Appalachian origins.
I recommend reading Appalachian Reckoning in small bites rather than all at once because a collection of articles and essays critiquing one book naturally becomes a bit repetitive. How many ways can you say that Hillbilly Elegy works as a memoir, but as sociology, it fails? Nonetheless, I hope every person who read the original book would read this rebuttal because this book sees the humanity and complexity of a region and does not do the disservice of telling people whose jobs have been erased, whose land and rivers have been poisoned, and who are in despair that they problems they have are because they are weak, lazy, and ignorant.
Appalachian Reckoning will be released on March 1st. I received a copy of Appalachian Reckoning from the publisher through NetGalley.
Appalachian Reckoning at West Virginia University Press
Anthony Harkins faculty page
Meredith McCarroll Chronicle Vitae
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
From the Protestant Work Ethic to the Prosperity Gospel, the god everyone worships is wealth and the greatest sin is poverty. America’s civic religion is Horation Algerism. This makes it very profitable to comfort the comfortable by telling them they need not feel compassion for those who struggle because it’s their own fault, their bad choices, their addiction to drugs, their failure to get a good job, and their cultural poverty. We hear it again with every generation and Vance hit a sweet spot just in time. We who are on the left and right can have smug contempt for Trump voters because they are uneducated, racist, lazy, hillbillies on opioids. According to R. C. Hutton points out “the book is aimed not at that underclass (few books are), but rather at a middle- and upper-class readership more than happy to learn that white American poverty has nothing to do with them or with any structural problems in American economy and society and everything to do with poor white folks’ inherent vices.” Yup.
Appalachian Reckoning restores the variety, vitality, and value of the people of Appalachia. The book includes several poems and photos and personal essays recounting the richness of that culture. The people of Appalachia are not culturally deficient. How much of our cultural heritage is sourced in those mountains? These are people who dared strike against the coal barons, whose Peabody coal strike is memorialized in song and film, and whose culture has fostered the Foxfire Magazine and book series (My parents had all the books.) Country music would not exist without its Appalachian origins.
I recommend reading Appalachian Reckoning in small bites rather than all at once because a collection of articles and essays critiquing one book naturally becomes a bit repetitive. How many ways can you say that Hillbilly Elegy works as a memoir, but as sociology, it fails? Nonetheless, I hope every person who read the original book would read this rebuttal because this book sees the humanity and complexity of a region and does not do the disservice of telling people whose jobs have been erased, whose land and rivers have been poisoned, and who are in despair that they problems they have are because they are weak, lazy, and ignorant.
Appalachian Reckoning will be released on March 1st. I received a copy of Appalachian Reckoning from the publisher through NetGalley.
Appalachian Reckoning at West Virginia University Press
Anthony Harkins faculty page
Meredith McCarroll Chronicle Vitae
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
Read
June 8, 2019I choose not to review this with a rating. I read some of it slowly but at least 1/2 I skim read and truly that skim reading was wasted time.
This just plain disappoints. The author's copy is professor talk and reflects pretentious (highest I've come across in years high) voice and a kind of coupled sanctimonious and at the same time a rather self-serving sense of definition and agenda placing.
And on top of all that it is just too high brow pompous and styled in artsy "depth". Which just isn't any depth at all to me. It seems much closer to a one way thinking only (allowed here, you MUST agree) effusion of context and definition. With additions that will reflect the author's mirror. An uneven mirror, at that. And one that reflects vitriol as much as the Queen's in the Snow White fairy tale at times.
I did think Vance's book held some dichotomies and rather was over valued on the whole. But it did seem honest and was stated as anecdotal. While this answer (even in the lengthy heady treatise placements introduction) seems ambiguous and at times just more on the page of a kind of propaganda for a held (and often quite bigger) agenda.
Very, very disappointing. If you like reading high allusion poetry and treatise mood and reasoning dire- you may like this more than I did. And only if you like your poetry or "art" to reflect negatives far more than positives. If I even attempted to rate it- I could never go beyond a 2.
This just plain disappoints. The author's copy is professor talk and reflects pretentious (highest I've come across in years high) voice and a kind of coupled sanctimonious and at the same time a rather self-serving sense of definition and agenda placing.
And on top of all that it is just too high brow pompous and styled in artsy "depth". Which just isn't any depth at all to me. It seems much closer to a one way thinking only (allowed here, you MUST agree) effusion of context and definition. With additions that will reflect the author's mirror. An uneven mirror, at that. And one that reflects vitriol as much as the Queen's in the Snow White fairy tale at times.
I did think Vance's book held some dichotomies and rather was over valued on the whole. But it did seem honest and was stated as anecdotal. While this answer (even in the lengthy heady treatise placements introduction) seems ambiguous and at times just more on the page of a kind of propaganda for a held (and often quite bigger) agenda.
Very, very disappointing. If you like reading high allusion poetry and treatise mood and reasoning dire- you may like this more than I did. And only if you like your poetry or "art" to reflect negatives far more than positives. If I even attempted to rate it- I could never go beyond a 2.
August 12, 2019
This is more like 41/2 stars. I loved the authentic voices in many of the stories and poems. Most challenge HE, but some defend it. Thoughtful, nuanced, and layered, this comes from people who still love where they came from. Vance says that he does, too, but I don't believe it.
It's certainly not as fun to read as Vance's stories about his lunatic grandmother. We all enjoy having our stereotypes reinforced, and Vance does that right well, shielded from criticism by his claim that it's just his own true story. His book brought conservatives and liberals together in shared disdain for hillbillies. Cue the banjo music.
Full disclosure--my roots are similar to Vance's in that I was born in southern Ohio of Appalachian stock. My grandfather was a coal miner and farmer, my father a truck driver. I'm a first generation college graduate. Didn't go to Yale Law School, but by many measures, I'm a success. I realize how very lucky I was.
When I read HE I was drawn in by Vance's stories -- I'm a story-teller after all. Until he defended payday lenders who have been preying on the poor in our home state of Ohio with interest rates as high as 591%. I stopped laughing. Turns out he worked for a politician who took donations from payday lenders to allow them to keep charging those usurious rates. Free enterprise, after all.
Do note: Appalachia is NOT responsible for electing Donald Trump. Sure, many states in that region voted for him. So did Utah, Wyoming, Iowa, and Michigan.
My point is, Vance keeps saying, it's just a memoir, but there's an agenda here. Overlook the racial and economic diversity of Appalachia. Blame the poor for their own troubles. Do not blame the extraction corporations that have laid waste to some of the land and some of the people who live there.
Appalachian Reckoning is harder to read, harder to hear. But it should be heard--it should be required companion reading at all those schools that have put Hillbilly Elegy on the freshman reading list.
It's certainly not as fun to read as Vance's stories about his lunatic grandmother. We all enjoy having our stereotypes reinforced, and Vance does that right well, shielded from criticism by his claim that it's just his own true story. His book brought conservatives and liberals together in shared disdain for hillbillies. Cue the banjo music.
Full disclosure--my roots are similar to Vance's in that I was born in southern Ohio of Appalachian stock. My grandfather was a coal miner and farmer, my father a truck driver. I'm a first generation college graduate. Didn't go to Yale Law School, but by many measures, I'm a success. I realize how very lucky I was.
When I read HE I was drawn in by Vance's stories -- I'm a story-teller after all. Until he defended payday lenders who have been preying on the poor in our home state of Ohio with interest rates as high as 591%. I stopped laughing. Turns out he worked for a politician who took donations from payday lenders to allow them to keep charging those usurious rates. Free enterprise, after all.
Do note: Appalachia is NOT responsible for electing Donald Trump. Sure, many states in that region voted for him. So did Utah, Wyoming, Iowa, and Michigan.
My point is, Vance keeps saying, it's just a memoir, but there's an agenda here. Overlook the racial and economic diversity of Appalachia. Blame the poor for their own troubles. Do not blame the extraction corporations that have laid waste to some of the land and some of the people who live there.
Appalachian Reckoning is harder to read, harder to hear. But it should be heard--it should be required companion reading at all those schools that have put Hillbilly Elegy on the freshman reading list.
May 4, 2019
Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds To Hillbilly Elegy
Edited By: Anthony Harkins and Meredith McCarroll
West Virginia University Press
NonFiction (Adult) Politics
Pub. Date 1 March 2019
Pages 432
#Appalachianreckoning#NetGalley
I am not sure how to go about reviewing this book. This is actually the first book I have ever DNFed.
I decided to do this at 40%. I had a hard time reading this book because all it did was bashed Vance about his Memoirs. I have read Hillbilly Elegy and I never thought of things these editors are talking about. I have a hard time of people bashing someone memoirs. Memoirs are how people feel and from their point of view. I know by looking at the ratings on Good Reads I am the only one who feels this way. I really don't want to bash these editors so I will leave it at this. Sorry but I just couldn't continue.
Edited By: Anthony Harkins and Meredith McCarroll
West Virginia University Press
NonFiction (Adult) Politics
Pub. Date 1 March 2019
Pages 432
#Appalachianreckoning#NetGalley
I am not sure how to go about reviewing this book. This is actually the first book I have ever DNFed.
I decided to do this at 40%. I had a hard time reading this book because all it did was bashed Vance about his Memoirs. I have read Hillbilly Elegy and I never thought of things these editors are talking about. I have a hard time of people bashing someone memoirs. Memoirs are how people feel and from their point of view. I know by looking at the ratings on Good Reads I am the only one who feels this way. I really don't want to bash these editors so I will leave it at this. Sorry but I just couldn't continue.
May 18, 2019
Aside from the personal narratives, I found this to be a pretentious, puffed-up attempt to attack JD Vance. Dude's entitled to his own story, his own personal narrative.
February 21, 2019
Written in direct response to Hillbilly Elegy, this collection’s strength lies in the diversity of its selections. If this had been merely a series of scholarly essays condemning J.D. Vance’s much-discussed memoir, it could’ve been seen by some as a tired, progressive rant. Instead, it is a varied collection of essays, photographs, poetry, and personal accounts by Appalachian scholars, writers, poets and others who represent a variety of experiences across the Appalachian region. Eye-opening and enlightening, especially to readers who never considered the fact that there might be another side to the Appalachian narrative. Stories such as these need to be shared alongside that of Hillbilly Elegy, to avoid a continuing stereotypical view of Appalachia, and to show the diversity of experiences in the region. An outstanding collection of voices and viewpoints and a fascinating, enjoyable read. I received an advanced review copy from NetGalley in exchange for a fair review of this publication.
April 27, 2021
I'm rating this 4 stars as a general reader, but if I was thinking of this a course text, it would definitely be 5 stars. Like many who have lived in Appalachia--and I have many, complicated feelings about the 9 years I lived there--I thought Hillbilly Elegy was an offensive caricature and indictment of Appalachian people. Since I began reading this book, Vance has officially announced he's going to pursue the senate seat to be vacated by Portman, so this response feels more relevant and necessary than ever.
The book is divided into two major sections. The first is a group of formal essays directly responding to and frequently dismantling Vance's claims. While I agreed with these essays and found them compelling, they were a bit repetitive, including citing the same sources and close reading the same passages. This is to be expected in an anthology, and it's one reason why I'd advocate reading this book slowly over time rather than trying to knock it out in one go.
The second section is a much looser collection of personal essays, poems, and photographs. While some pieces were stronger than others, I appreciated the diverse people and experiences represented. However, I wish there was more context to tie it to the first section. It really felt like it could or should have been two separate books. The mission of both parts was similar--to provide an alternative way of thinking about Appalachia from what the mainstream, and most recently, Vance has offered--but I wish more connective work had been done to account for the major shift in style and approach. If I was a student or a teacher in a class, I'd likely appreciate having a range of texts in one collection, but as a general reader, I longed for the book to be a bit more cohesive and build to something that the arrangement of this book doesn't quite let happen.
My other big question, which has nothing to do with the quality of the book itself, is just who this book is for. The clear answer is that it's for the Appalachians who were spoken for by Vance but didn't see their experiences represented in his work, or who found his arguments lacking context and factual support. But what about the people who read Hillbilly Elegy and were satisfied? How, then, do we get these people to crack open a book like Appalachian Reckoning? Books like these always make me wonder about the issue of "preaching to the choir." In looking at some of the negative reviews of this book, people feel it's an "attack" on Vance, or that the pieces are too harsh. I guess I just wonder how an anthology like this one can overcome such limitations and reach the audiences most in need of broadening their perspectives.
The book is divided into two major sections. The first is a group of formal essays directly responding to and frequently dismantling Vance's claims. While I agreed with these essays and found them compelling, they were a bit repetitive, including citing the same sources and close reading the same passages. This is to be expected in an anthology, and it's one reason why I'd advocate reading this book slowly over time rather than trying to knock it out in one go.
The second section is a much looser collection of personal essays, poems, and photographs. While some pieces were stronger than others, I appreciated the diverse people and experiences represented. However, I wish there was more context to tie it to the first section. It really felt like it could or should have been two separate books. The mission of both parts was similar--to provide an alternative way of thinking about Appalachia from what the mainstream, and most recently, Vance has offered--but I wish more connective work had been done to account for the major shift in style and approach. If I was a student or a teacher in a class, I'd likely appreciate having a range of texts in one collection, but as a general reader, I longed for the book to be a bit more cohesive and build to something that the arrangement of this book doesn't quite let happen.
My other big question, which has nothing to do with the quality of the book itself, is just who this book is for. The clear answer is that it's for the Appalachians who were spoken for by Vance but didn't see their experiences represented in his work, or who found his arguments lacking context and factual support. But what about the people who read Hillbilly Elegy and were satisfied? How, then, do we get these people to crack open a book like Appalachian Reckoning? Books like these always make me wonder about the issue of "preaching to the choir." In looking at some of the negative reviews of this book, people feel it's an "attack" on Vance, or that the pieces are too harsh. I guess I just wonder how an anthology like this one can overcome such limitations and reach the audiences most in need of broadening their perspectives.
December 18, 2020
HILLBILLIES DON'T NEED NO ELEGY
January 5, 2019
A thorough compilation of various reflections on life and the experience of Appalachia and responses to the portrayal of Appalachia and its culture in J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy."
The response to the book is generally critical: the contributors recognize the work as reflective of Vance's personal experience, but they (rightly) take him to task for reinforcing stereotypes in his work, reducing a group of people to a cultural caricature, completely neglecting the experiences of people of color and others in the region, and using the whole story to push a particular political ideology without a full reckoning of the many factors which have led to dysfunction in many Appalachian communities. The authors are also critical of the response to Vance's work, since it tends to reinforce stereotypes and the socio-cultural hierarchies already in place: look at all those poor little people over there in their dysfunctional culture; this is why Trump was elected; etc. A few of the contributors do well at tracing how Vance's work is just one in a series which has done the same thing to the way people look at Appalachia.
The work instead embodies a much more holistic and nuanced portrayal of Appalachia, from those who grew up and stayed, from those who grew up and left, and those who grew up, left, and returned. We hear the experiences of people of color in Appalachia. We hear from those who experienced its religion or the lack thereof; we hear from those who grew up in dysfunction and from those whose family lives were healthier. People's flaws are very apparent - but we also see many of their virtues, their perseverance, and the ability to look at the culture without pathologizing it.
One walks away from this book with a much better view of what Appalachia is all about, although even here the work is still somewhat academic, written by what is ultimately the elite to explain the land to the elite elsewhere. But so such studies go.
If you really liked "Hillbilly Elegy," you owe it to intellectual honesty and integrity to consider this work and use it to balance how one views and speaks of Appalachia.
**--galley received as part of early review program
The response to the book is generally critical: the contributors recognize the work as reflective of Vance's personal experience, but they (rightly) take him to task for reinforcing stereotypes in his work, reducing a group of people to a cultural caricature, completely neglecting the experiences of people of color and others in the region, and using the whole story to push a particular political ideology without a full reckoning of the many factors which have led to dysfunction in many Appalachian communities. The authors are also critical of the response to Vance's work, since it tends to reinforce stereotypes and the socio-cultural hierarchies already in place: look at all those poor little people over there in their dysfunctional culture; this is why Trump was elected; etc. A few of the contributors do well at tracing how Vance's work is just one in a series which has done the same thing to the way people look at Appalachia.
The work instead embodies a much more holistic and nuanced portrayal of Appalachia, from those who grew up and stayed, from those who grew up and left, and those who grew up, left, and returned. We hear the experiences of people of color in Appalachia. We hear from those who experienced its religion or the lack thereof; we hear from those who grew up in dysfunction and from those whose family lives were healthier. People's flaws are very apparent - but we also see many of their virtues, their perseverance, and the ability to look at the culture without pathologizing it.
One walks away from this book with a much better view of what Appalachia is all about, although even here the work is still somewhat academic, written by what is ultimately the elite to explain the land to the elite elsewhere. But so such studies go.
If you really liked "Hillbilly Elegy," you owe it to intellectual honesty and integrity to consider this work and use it to balance how one views and speaks of Appalachia.
**--galley received as part of early review program
March 18, 2019
I appreciate the diversity in this collection—not only of perspective but also form and genre. Ranging from traditional, scholarly articles to creative nonfiction and poetry, this is a good range of snapshots of contemporary Appalachia and the Appalachian diaspora.
December 19, 2018
Point well taken. I read the Vance book and didn't give to much thought to the whole, if that makes any sense. I live in the Rust Belt, yet I wouldn't categorize the entire region as down and out, illiterate, etc... I, and many others, are educated and solidly middle class, though maybe not living in McMansions, or driving luxuary cars, etc... Appalachia isn't any different. And it's always been made of many different ethic groups. Over all, I did enjoy the book, and the backlash to it caught me by surprise! In hind sight, I guess the book was a gross generalization of the region.
I enjoyed this book, too, though. Lots of new perspectives- always a good thing! Poetry, too. Nice collection of views and opinions, covers a nice cross section of society.
What has struck me about both books though is the opioid crisis in Appalachia. 40-50 years ago, I don't recall the inner city heroin crisis getting quite as much attention. And I don't think the opioid issue id limited to or greater in Appalachia than anywhere else. I read the crisis was worse in Ohio, in general, than anywhere else, but N.E. Ohio certainly isn't Appalachian.
I'm guessing there will always be social problems and not all will be solved. Some folks will just get lucky breaks, through both dogged determination, being i the right place at the right time, hard work, etc...Sometimes the gods just smile on someone. Both books have merit in my opinion and I found both enlightening.
I received a Kindle Arc in exchange for a fair review from Netgalley.
I enjoyed this book, too, though. Lots of new perspectives- always a good thing! Poetry, too. Nice collection of views and opinions, covers a nice cross section of society.
What has struck me about both books though is the opioid crisis in Appalachia. 40-50 years ago, I don't recall the inner city heroin crisis getting quite as much attention. And I don't think the opioid issue id limited to or greater in Appalachia than anywhere else. I read the crisis was worse in Ohio, in general, than anywhere else, but N.E. Ohio certainly isn't Appalachian.
I'm guessing there will always be social problems and not all will be solved. Some folks will just get lucky breaks, through both dogged determination, being i the right place at the right time, hard work, etc...Sometimes the gods just smile on someone. Both books have merit in my opinion and I found both enlightening.
I received a Kindle Arc in exchange for a fair review from Netgalley.
February 25, 2021
This is a wonderfully complex and thoughtful compilation. I learned a great deal about Appalachia and the wide variety of people who call it home, and feel inspired to try to connect more genuinely with some of my generational roots which run back there.
In my opinion this book, with its multitude of voices, presents a much more engaging, developed, and moving picture of Appalachia than Hillbilly Elegy does.
In my opinion this book, with its multitude of voices, presents a much more engaging, developed, and moving picture of Appalachia than Hillbilly Elegy does.
March 18, 2019
This a response to Hillbilly Elegy. It is uneven with considerable vitriol. Admittedly, Vance’s autobiograpphy, a rags to riches story, is one man’s perspective and should not be taken as the source of all knowledge on the deep, problematic region. However, there is a problem in how the media seized upon it and the breadth of Vance’s success. No matter, no source has come close to solving its problems.
August 20, 2024
Really good but I swear, this book felt like 4,000 pages long and not 400.
December 27, 2024
The people of Appalachia are not a homogenous group, and I am grateful that some of them got together to write this response for Hillbilly Elegy. I chose not to read that one because it felt too sensationalized to capture an introspective and humble personal experience. I also did not believe that that book generalized to the pluralistic Appalachian experience. Given all of that, I recognize that this book is not all inclusive, but I appreciate that it invited multiple voices and perspectives to explore a complicated and arguably elusive truth. I also appreciate that it challenged the reader to have a wider view of Appalachia rather than trying to boil a whole region down into its essential elements. People are way more complex than that. This collection includes scholars of Appalachian history, renowned Appalachian writers and artists, and other writers in between who are rooted in the history and present as well as investment in the future of the region. I highly recommend this book, and I encourage readers of it to be open minded and hesitant to come to premature conclusions. If I’ve learned anything from years of graduate school in clinical psychology is that we don’t come to a diagnosis from a single data point. We should be even more careful about making conclusions about whole populations.
February 7, 2020
Read this if you have read J.D. Vance's 'Hillbilly Elegy' or if you have not read 'Hillbilly Elegy'. The authors in this collection of essays, poems, and photographs, pushes back against his narrative (for the most part). Favorites: Bob Hutton, Lisa Pruitt, William Turner, Ivy Brashear, Dwight Billings, Jim Minick, Rachel Wise, and Edward Karshner.
September 17, 2024
A comprehensive look at J. D. Vanc's Hillbilly Elegy and the reaction to it from various writers, scholars, artists and poets from the Appalachia. A mosaic of voices from eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, southern and southwestern Virginia, southern Ohio, eastern and central Tennessee, northern Georgia, south central Pennsylvania and western North Carolina. The striking difference in the appreciation of his work and the disagreement with his limited take on the area is delivered in a variety of voices and approaches. So much of the region was defined by Vance as victims of their own circumstances. He delivers a story of pulling himself up by his bootstraps but offers no solution to the poverty and abandonment by the government and industry to this region. There are numerous good works achieved by many people in this book who have left and returned to their native home to bring support and ideas for their communities. Vance's book is a narrow slice of his life growing up in Appalachian Ohio and he offers very little insight into the many diverse people who live in this area. Like social media or cable news where so many people get their news this book is narrowly drawn and offers one individual perspective that has unfortunately been immensely popular and highly received to the extent that it has made its author the voice of a region. Lyndon johnson's war on poverty did more for this region than Hillbilly Elegy could possibly provide yet it has made its author into a hugely successful political figure. His Appalachin victim blaming is discussed and dismissed by a wide range of academics. His book is seen as a story of a dead region, hence the elegy, and this book gives a pushback to this concept of stereotyping which has infected material written about the region for decades. From the film Deliverance to the TV show the Beverley Hillbillies, Vance's Hillbilly Elegy further characterizes the people as being victimized by their own genetic history. Hillbilly Elegy completely ignores the black and brown people who live and work alongside the white hillbillies and have also contributed to the cultural history of the region. Appalachin Reckoning is a far broader and better informed work which delivers the idea that America needs to help create the kind of opporunity systems for working class Americans of all races and ethnicities which Hillbilly Elegy does little to inspire.
December 21, 2024
This was fascinating and so interesting to read from so many different authors with different perspectives.
My dad had me read Hillbilly Elegy in 2017 as a way to help me as a young adult navigate his family (all of whom are from rural Indiana) and the dynamics as the child of the one who "got out": JD Vance's perspective and story struck a cord with him (and me) and was perhaps one of the first times I had ever encountered published work that emulated my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
Obviously, the passage of time brings new context to Vance and his book, so a collection of writings (essays, poems, personal reflections, etc) like this that highlights so many different perspectives from the region is (and always should have been) a must read in conjunction with Hillbilly Elegy.
The history major in me appreciated the triad narrative of this anthology, first interrogating Vance and what he posited in Hillbilly Elegy; then responding to it (both defending his perspective and sharing other lived experiences); and finally moving beyond his narrative and showcasing other voices and writers. The fact that all the contributors are from Appalachia makes this even more profound.
Big thanks to the TikTok creator who's video I saw recommending this anthology (I don't remember her name but credit is deserved regardless).
My dad had me read Hillbilly Elegy in 2017 as a way to help me as a young adult navigate his family (all of whom are from rural Indiana) and the dynamics as the child of the one who "got out": JD Vance's perspective and story struck a cord with him (and me) and was perhaps one of the first times I had ever encountered published work that emulated my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.
Obviously, the passage of time brings new context to Vance and his book, so a collection of writings (essays, poems, personal reflections, etc) like this that highlights so many different perspectives from the region is (and always should have been) a must read in conjunction with Hillbilly Elegy.
The history major in me appreciated the triad narrative of this anthology, first interrogating Vance and what he posited in Hillbilly Elegy; then responding to it (both defending his perspective and sharing other lived experiences); and finally moving beyond his narrative and showcasing other voices and writers. The fact that all the contributors are from Appalachia makes this even more profound.
Big thanks to the TikTok creator who's video I saw recommending this anthology (I don't remember her name but credit is deserved regardless).
January 20, 2020
I really enjoyed reading “Hillbilly Elegy” but I also felt that some of the conclusions drawn by Vance fell short of what I personally felt influenced the white working class acceptance of Trump. “Hillbilly Reckoning” helps to augment Vance’s book with varied experiences of Appalachian life. The first few essays are focused pretty heavily on how Vance squandered an opportunity to speak to some of the underlying influences of poverty, family life and drug abuse but the tone becomes more constructive as you progress though the book. Every person from or influenced by Appalachia could write their own book about the subject and draw varied conclusions. So how do you really learn for yourself about such a diverse area? You must visit and experience life there for yourself with no pre-conceived notions as best as possible.
June 27, 2019
Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillybilly Elegy did what it set out to do; it gave the reader a different point of view from J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. Part I consisted of a compilation of educated professionals that gave their assessment on the Appalachian peoples' way of life, poverty, drug abuse, etcetera. It was interesting, but at times, overwhelming with all the cited references disputing J.D. Vance's judgment as to why the white working-class is in crisis.
Part II kept me riveted. Genuine Appalachian people shined, giving the reader insight into their way of life through their poems, letters, and pictures. Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillybilly Elegy gets 5 stars from me.
Part II kept me riveted. Genuine Appalachian people shined, giving the reader insight into their way of life through their poems, letters, and pictures. Appalachian Reckoning: A Region Responds to Hillybilly Elegy gets 5 stars from me.
December 2, 2020
I picked this up after re-reading Hillbilly Elegy... It's an interesting look at how different Appalachian people responded to JD Vance's book. Overwhelmingly the consensus seems to be that it perpetuates old harmful stereotypes, and blames individuals & their communities for problems that they didn't create and gives a very narrow view of the people of this region, makes broad generalizations about class & wealth
This book addresses the opioid crisis, addiction, generational poverty, lack of diversity in HE, gives stories of lives & experiences of it's authors and families who grew up in Appalachia
Good book; it made me look at Hillbilly Elegy and it's author in a different light
This book addresses the opioid crisis, addiction, generational poverty, lack of diversity in HE, gives stories of lives & experiences of it's authors and families who grew up in Appalachia
Good book; it made me look at Hillbilly Elegy and it's author in a different light
January 31, 2020
I agree with the premiss of this book, but its substance is kind of a mess. I feel like the editors should have worked with the essayists more directly so that they didn't end up feeling like they were repeating the same points, often using the same quotes to describe the book or the reaction to it. The personal narratives at the end were better, but by that point I just really wanted this book to be over.
July 5, 2019
A wonderful book with fresh perspectives on what it means to be Appalachian! So many voices but clear themes come shining through in essays, poems, prose and photographs. A must-read for people wanting to understand the region and its people.
June 16, 2021
It took me a while to read this book in part because some of the essays feel repetitive and explore the same themes and make similar points about Hillbilly Elegy. Overall, it is an insightful response to J.D. Vance's memoir.
January 19, 2022
An interesting, informative, and thoughtful (and much more enjoyable) follow up to my reading of Hillbilly Elegy. Im glad to have read it as it validated and focused my uneasy reaction to Hillbilly Elegy.
October 28, 2022
A really good book discussing the complexities of Appalachian identity that is more than just what JD Vance’s book describes as typical even if he is describing it in a personal memoir fashion. Also screw him for having no backbone.
October 26, 2024
Somewhat dry and academic at times, sometimes repetitive, and very scattered in what it offers, but this book overall offers some thought-provoking reflections on place and its meaning. As might be expected, most of it is not particularly generous towards Vance, but I have a hard time finding that unmerited.
January 24, 2025
A very emotionally charged book in a time such as this one. A needed response full of anger and hope.
January 16, 2020
“Sometimes those who complain loudest about stereotypes are also quickest to use them.” - Jim Minick (367)
This book was a collection of essays or poems that criticize or respond to Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance. I can understand that some Appalachians would be offended that Vance’s description of hillbillies aligns with stereotypes that are not true of every person in the area. But this book itself is hypocritical, because for instance, it criticizes even Vance’s title of his book for saying “a culture in crisis” as if his experience speaks for the entire Appalachian culture, while this book is titled “a region responds” as if this book contains a well balanced mix of the region’s voices. The reality is that this book only seems to have voices from the liberal middle or upper class, people who (like Vance) used to be from Appalachia but left and were educated in expensive universities. Why not interview some Appalachians who were NOT college educated and who still live in the area? You could give them a copy of Vance’s book to have them read it if they haven’t read it yet, and then ask afterwards what they thought.
Many readers of that book apparently read it to gain insight into why Appalachians voted for Trump. But his memoir didn’t really explain it. This book does a better job at answering that question.
The first half of the book is all negative criticism of Hillbilly Elegy. The authors of these essays are just offended that there is anything at all negative said about hillbillies. About halfway through the book on page 171, the essays start to get more positive of Elegy. I liked these latter essays more because I tended to agree with them. So, going in order of the essays as they were laid out in this book, I will give my own criticism:
“What is culture other than a set of modes or habits that are subject to human choice and change over time” (29)?
I would define culture as the social norms of a society. I wouldn’t say they are much of human choice, or that they change much over time. Culture is usually used as a way to excuse “the way things are” in a society, that it’s unchangeable and people inside and outside of it just have to put up with it.
Dwight Billings says Hillbilly Elegy is “an advertisement for capitalist neoliberalism and personal choice. I did not choose to write about this book; it chose me” (38).
I’m a firm believer in personal choice. The memoir does not have its own will, so there is no factual way that it can choose you to write about it. Someone may have asked you to write about it, but that would be a person, not the book. And ultimately you still chose to comply.
In Vance’s opinion, the problem of Appalachian poverty “boils down simply to the bad personal choices individuals make in the face of economic decline—not to the corporate capitalist economy that creates immense profits by casting off much of its workforce or the failure of governments to respond to this ongoing crisis” (40).
Poverty has been a problem across the world for centuries. When government tries to fix it, it’s usually in the form of socialism and communism which just becomes corrupt and fails. I think government could help some poverty by banning outsourcing. But handing out free money to the poor is not a good solution, because it’s just a temporary fix and doesn’t motivate people to work for their own money. Just because corporations in Appalachia took their business elsewhere doesn’t mean the people living there should throw up their hands in defeat and stop trying to get another job. There are still personal choices when it comes to finance. One can choose to move out of the blighted area for a better life. One can choose to not waste one’s money on drugs and alcohol and tattoos and piercings and make up and the latest tech gadgets. As long as people just live off welfare and don’t work, they’re going to stay poor.
I guess that’s a main difference between democrats and republicans: democrats want government to solve their problems. Republicans tell you to solve your own problems. In the socialist system (which more democrats claim to align themselves with), the only people who get rich are government. With Republicans, business owners get rich. The democrat system sees the poor as powerless victims that someone else needs to save. Republicans say, save yourself. Most rich people started out with humble beginnings, but they succeeded because of capitalism, not because of government handouts.
“Vance’s fix, the usual neoliberal fix, is fix thyself” (41).
I mostly agree with Vance, because you can’t just wait around for someone else to solve your problems. Of course you can try voting for the change you want. But don’t hold your breath for that working out. If you want to succeed, you have to try to solve your own problems. Because that’s the only thing the individual can control: self.
What if Vance had waited for government to fix his poverty instead of going to college? Then he would have stayed poor. In a way, government DID help, by giving him financial aid in order to pay for his college. This option is available to all poor people. But it’s still up to the individual to apply and try hard in school.
“Wendy Brown refers to this ideology as a new ‘normative order of reason, a new governing rationality’ that constantly cajoles all persons, not just the poor, to police, reinvent, and perfect themselves, to be adept and flexible enough to make the right personal choices that hopefully will protect them against harsh and unpredictable vicissitudes of economic turmoil they can’t control” (45). What’s wrong with that?
“They are annoyed by critique” (46). Isn’t everyone?
Left-leaning writers blame “the decline of unions and with it their potential to divert voters from socially divisive issues” for why Hillary Clinton lost the election, among other things (48). Nobody should influence someone else’s vote, no matter what side they’re on.
The least popular subject for college reading programs is LGBT issues (63). I’m sure that will change soon. And like the other subjects colleges force their students to read, they will “endorse or affirm” rather than open a discussion or debate about it (69). And if anyone complains about that, they’ll be labeled a homo/transphobe.
“The transformation of Hillbilly Elegy from memoir to educational text makes it difficult to critique or debate” (70).
Gary Houchens, a professor of education administration for Western Kentucky University, believes that “government should reorganize tax policy and federal assistance programs to incentivize marriage to break the cycle of poverty within economically disadvantaged families” (71-72). Ha! As if forcing people to get married would take them out of poverty?! Marriage costs money! So does divorce! Although it’s statistically more likely for the poor to come from unmarried families, marriage is just a symptom of something else: stability and responsibility. It is those traits which are negatively correlated with poverty, but those traits can’t be forced on people.
“Although [Caudill, author of Night Comes to the Cumberlands] shared with them the burden of living in a coal-exploited region and the environmental consequences that followed, he had a comfortable life, a good education, a middle class profession, and a stable family, and he exhibited resentment toward those lacking the same” (76). Doesn’t this imply that the majority of those in the region are poor, uneducated, etc.? Yet the writers in this book seem to want us to believe otherwise.
“...particularly after the War on Poverty failed to lift Appalachians out of poverty as intended” (76). Why do the authors imply that the individuals can’t help themselves out of poverty but must rely on government to help? The government already tried to help, and look how that turned out.
On p.86, Roger Guy criticizes Vance for saying “Mamaw came from a family that would shoot at you rather than argue with you” because it’s consistent with stereotypes of hillbillies. But Vance was not making the claim that HILLBILLIES would rather shoot at you than argue with you. He was only talking about his own grandmother! Haven’t people the right to speak honestly about their own family without it being taken as evidence for some group as a whole? Vance is not the problem. The problem is people who generalize and stereotype based on one example.
“The lower class individual lives from moment to moment. If he has any awareness of the future, it is something fixed, fated, beyond his control: things happen TO him, he does not MAKE them happen. . . . He works only as he must to stay alive and drifts from one unskilled job to another.” - Edward Banfield (97). Roger Guy says this is consistent with Vance’s opinion of hillbillies. But it’s also consistent with liberals who blame all the hillbillies’ problems on outside influences rather on the individuals. In the liberal opinion, the individual cannot MAKE anything happen, only the government can; the poor hillbillies had things happen TO them; they are not to be held responsible for their own situations.
The violence and impulsivity of hillbillies “has less to do with hillbilly values than the social conditions and influences in which any new urban migrant group find themselves” (100). What about Asian Americans? They started out poor when they migrated to America, but they worked hard and made themselves successful. Even after the Japanese were taken from their homes and put in internment camps, they still managed to be successful afterward!
“What Vance does not talk about is his privilege—male, whiteish, and urbanish” (107). Those things had nothing to do with why he succeeded. If he had any privileges at all, it was him having a grandmother in his life who instilled a hard work ethic into him. Colleges already have plenty of males and whites attending; it’s not like Yale chose him because of his sex or race. It’s actually MINORITIES who have the privilege applying to colleges, because of affirmative action—except Asians, of course, who colleges purposely don’t want to accept too many of because there are so many smart ones.
“He also does not talk about the role of the state as a positive force that facilitated his upward trajectory to the Ivy League and beyond” (107). Actually he did. He said that because he was poor, he could qualify for scholarships/grants which made it cheaper to go to Yale than to go to a non-Ivy League school. So his poverty was a privilege. And the precious government programs that these liberal writers love so much is something that helped Vance get into Yale for cheap. The writers say the government should do more to help these people out of poverty, but these programs already exist to help the poor. Vance succeeded, so the other poor people could do similarly if they applied themselves.
“Progressive folks (among whom I count myself) would vigorously protest Vance’s tough-love stance if he were writing about poor people of color, calling them lazy and criticizing them for ‘bad choices.’ Most progressives seem unfazed, however, that Vance’s assessments and policy proposals throw low-income whites under the proverbial bus” (108). That’s because people think it’s okay to criticize whites because then they won’t get called racist. But it IS racist to be okay with criticizing one race but not another. Any race can be lazy and make bad choices, and to be blind to that just because you don’t want to insult POC is stupid, biased, and RACIST.
“Now, post-Yale Law School, he enjoys at least some modicum of white privilege” (110). No, he has privilege now because he worked hard to get to and through Yale. And now he has the privilege of putting Yale on his resume, which opens a lot of doors, as well as the networking he discussed in the book. His elevated status now has nothing to do with being white.
“Except for his frequent use of ‘white’ to modify ‘working class’ (about fifty times throughout the book), Vance writes as if race is not relevant to his analysis” (112). Because it’s not. He’s talking about hillbillies. And as some have pointed out, there ARE non-white hillbillies. He is talking about people from a certain geographic region who are mainly BUT NOT SOLELY white. The area they’re from has more to do with who they are than their race.
P. 113-114: Two of Vance’s “messages about race might be summarized thusly: white people don’t equally enjoy the fruits of ‘white skin’ or whiteness more generally, and not every bad thing that happens to a Black person is entirely racially motivated. I agree with these points.” Really, you do? “And they find some support in recent scholarship.” It’s laughable that people think they need some peer reviewed study to tell them what is common sense.
This book was a collection of essays or poems that criticize or respond to Hillbilly Elegy by J.D. Vance. I can understand that some Appalachians would be offended that Vance’s description of hillbillies aligns with stereotypes that are not true of every person in the area. But this book itself is hypocritical, because for instance, it criticizes even Vance’s title of his book for saying “a culture in crisis” as if his experience speaks for the entire Appalachian culture, while this book is titled “a region responds” as if this book contains a well balanced mix of the region’s voices. The reality is that this book only seems to have voices from the liberal middle or upper class, people who (like Vance) used to be from Appalachia but left and were educated in expensive universities. Why not interview some Appalachians who were NOT college educated and who still live in the area? You could give them a copy of Vance’s book to have them read it if they haven’t read it yet, and then ask afterwards what they thought.
Many readers of that book apparently read it to gain insight into why Appalachians voted for Trump. But his memoir didn’t really explain it. This book does a better job at answering that question.
The first half of the book is all negative criticism of Hillbilly Elegy. The authors of these essays are just offended that there is anything at all negative said about hillbillies. About halfway through the book on page 171, the essays start to get more positive of Elegy. I liked these latter essays more because I tended to agree with them. So, going in order of the essays as they were laid out in this book, I will give my own criticism:
“What is culture other than a set of modes or habits that are subject to human choice and change over time” (29)?
I would define culture as the social norms of a society. I wouldn’t say they are much of human choice, or that they change much over time. Culture is usually used as a way to excuse “the way things are” in a society, that it’s unchangeable and people inside and outside of it just have to put up with it.
Dwight Billings says Hillbilly Elegy is “an advertisement for capitalist neoliberalism and personal choice. I did not choose to write about this book; it chose me” (38).
I’m a firm believer in personal choice. The memoir does not have its own will, so there is no factual way that it can choose you to write about it. Someone may have asked you to write about it, but that would be a person, not the book. And ultimately you still chose to comply.
In Vance’s opinion, the problem of Appalachian poverty “boils down simply to the bad personal choices individuals make in the face of economic decline—not to the corporate capitalist economy that creates immense profits by casting off much of its workforce or the failure of governments to respond to this ongoing crisis” (40).
Poverty has been a problem across the world for centuries. When government tries to fix it, it’s usually in the form of socialism and communism which just becomes corrupt and fails. I think government could help some poverty by banning outsourcing. But handing out free money to the poor is not a good solution, because it’s just a temporary fix and doesn’t motivate people to work for their own money. Just because corporations in Appalachia took their business elsewhere doesn’t mean the people living there should throw up their hands in defeat and stop trying to get another job. There are still personal choices when it comes to finance. One can choose to move out of the blighted area for a better life. One can choose to not waste one’s money on drugs and alcohol and tattoos and piercings and make up and the latest tech gadgets. As long as people just live off welfare and don’t work, they’re going to stay poor.
I guess that’s a main difference between democrats and republicans: democrats want government to solve their problems. Republicans tell you to solve your own problems. In the socialist system (which more democrats claim to align themselves with), the only people who get rich are government. With Republicans, business owners get rich. The democrat system sees the poor as powerless victims that someone else needs to save. Republicans say, save yourself. Most rich people started out with humble beginnings, but they succeeded because of capitalism, not because of government handouts.
“Vance’s fix, the usual neoliberal fix, is fix thyself” (41).
I mostly agree with Vance, because you can’t just wait around for someone else to solve your problems. Of course you can try voting for the change you want. But don’t hold your breath for that working out. If you want to succeed, you have to try to solve your own problems. Because that’s the only thing the individual can control: self.
What if Vance had waited for government to fix his poverty instead of going to college? Then he would have stayed poor. In a way, government DID help, by giving him financial aid in order to pay for his college. This option is available to all poor people. But it’s still up to the individual to apply and try hard in school.
“Wendy Brown refers to this ideology as a new ‘normative order of reason, a new governing rationality’ that constantly cajoles all persons, not just the poor, to police, reinvent, and perfect themselves, to be adept and flexible enough to make the right personal choices that hopefully will protect them against harsh and unpredictable vicissitudes of economic turmoil they can’t control” (45). What’s wrong with that?
“They are annoyed by critique” (46). Isn’t everyone?
Left-leaning writers blame “the decline of unions and with it their potential to divert voters from socially divisive issues” for why Hillary Clinton lost the election, among other things (48). Nobody should influence someone else’s vote, no matter what side they’re on.
The least popular subject for college reading programs is LGBT issues (63). I’m sure that will change soon. And like the other subjects colleges force their students to read, they will “endorse or affirm” rather than open a discussion or debate about it (69). And if anyone complains about that, they’ll be labeled a homo/transphobe.
“The transformation of Hillbilly Elegy from memoir to educational text makes it difficult to critique or debate” (70).
Gary Houchens, a professor of education administration for Western Kentucky University, believes that “government should reorganize tax policy and federal assistance programs to incentivize marriage to break the cycle of poverty within economically disadvantaged families” (71-72). Ha! As if forcing people to get married would take them out of poverty?! Marriage costs money! So does divorce! Although it’s statistically more likely for the poor to come from unmarried families, marriage is just a symptom of something else: stability and responsibility. It is those traits which are negatively correlated with poverty, but those traits can’t be forced on people.
“Although [Caudill, author of Night Comes to the Cumberlands] shared with them the burden of living in a coal-exploited region and the environmental consequences that followed, he had a comfortable life, a good education, a middle class profession, and a stable family, and he exhibited resentment toward those lacking the same” (76). Doesn’t this imply that the majority of those in the region are poor, uneducated, etc.? Yet the writers in this book seem to want us to believe otherwise.
“...particularly after the War on Poverty failed to lift Appalachians out of poverty as intended” (76). Why do the authors imply that the individuals can’t help themselves out of poverty but must rely on government to help? The government already tried to help, and look how that turned out.
On p.86, Roger Guy criticizes Vance for saying “Mamaw came from a family that would shoot at you rather than argue with you” because it’s consistent with stereotypes of hillbillies. But Vance was not making the claim that HILLBILLIES would rather shoot at you than argue with you. He was only talking about his own grandmother! Haven’t people the right to speak honestly about their own family without it being taken as evidence for some group as a whole? Vance is not the problem. The problem is people who generalize and stereotype based on one example.
“The lower class individual lives from moment to moment. If he has any awareness of the future, it is something fixed, fated, beyond his control: things happen TO him, he does not MAKE them happen. . . . He works only as he must to stay alive and drifts from one unskilled job to another.” - Edward Banfield (97). Roger Guy says this is consistent with Vance’s opinion of hillbillies. But it’s also consistent with liberals who blame all the hillbillies’ problems on outside influences rather on the individuals. In the liberal opinion, the individual cannot MAKE anything happen, only the government can; the poor hillbillies had things happen TO them; they are not to be held responsible for their own situations.
The violence and impulsivity of hillbillies “has less to do with hillbilly values than the social conditions and influences in which any new urban migrant group find themselves” (100). What about Asian Americans? They started out poor when they migrated to America, but they worked hard and made themselves successful. Even after the Japanese were taken from their homes and put in internment camps, they still managed to be successful afterward!
“What Vance does not talk about is his privilege—male, whiteish, and urbanish” (107). Those things had nothing to do with why he succeeded. If he had any privileges at all, it was him having a grandmother in his life who instilled a hard work ethic into him. Colleges already have plenty of males and whites attending; it’s not like Yale chose him because of his sex or race. It’s actually MINORITIES who have the privilege applying to colleges, because of affirmative action—except Asians, of course, who colleges purposely don’t want to accept too many of because there are so many smart ones.
“He also does not talk about the role of the state as a positive force that facilitated his upward trajectory to the Ivy League and beyond” (107). Actually he did. He said that because he was poor, he could qualify for scholarships/grants which made it cheaper to go to Yale than to go to a non-Ivy League school. So his poverty was a privilege. And the precious government programs that these liberal writers love so much is something that helped Vance get into Yale for cheap. The writers say the government should do more to help these people out of poverty, but these programs already exist to help the poor. Vance succeeded, so the other poor people could do similarly if they applied themselves.
“Progressive folks (among whom I count myself) would vigorously protest Vance’s tough-love stance if he were writing about poor people of color, calling them lazy and criticizing them for ‘bad choices.’ Most progressives seem unfazed, however, that Vance’s assessments and policy proposals throw low-income whites under the proverbial bus” (108). That’s because people think it’s okay to criticize whites because then they won’t get called racist. But it IS racist to be okay with criticizing one race but not another. Any race can be lazy and make bad choices, and to be blind to that just because you don’t want to insult POC is stupid, biased, and RACIST.
“Now, post-Yale Law School, he enjoys at least some modicum of white privilege” (110). No, he has privilege now because he worked hard to get to and through Yale. And now he has the privilege of putting Yale on his resume, which opens a lot of doors, as well as the networking he discussed in the book. His elevated status now has nothing to do with being white.
“Except for his frequent use of ‘white’ to modify ‘working class’ (about fifty times throughout the book), Vance writes as if race is not relevant to his analysis” (112). Because it’s not. He’s talking about hillbillies. And as some have pointed out, there ARE non-white hillbillies. He is talking about people from a certain geographic region who are mainly BUT NOT SOLELY white. The area they’re from has more to do with who they are than their race.
P. 113-114: Two of Vance’s “messages about race might be summarized thusly: white people don’t equally enjoy the fruits of ‘white skin’ or whiteness more generally, and not every bad thing that happens to a Black person is entirely racially motivated. I agree with these points.” Really, you do? “And they find some support in recent scholarship.” It’s laughable that people think they need some peer reviewed study to tell them what is common sense.
December 23, 2023
I think the various authors of this collection do have a point, and it may be an obvious one, but one worth reiterating as many in the political spectrum seem to ignore it, which is that you can't judge an entire region or people based on one book. Taking cues from this lesson, I've decided to take their advice and base my entire opinion of the region on two (2) books instead! The first being J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy" and the second being this work. Now, I will have to say that in some ways the editor of this series of essays, Anthony Harkins, shot himself in the foot, because, when we're talking about the ultimate reach of these two works, the most important factor is going to be readability and entertainment factor. "Hillbilly Elegy" at least in a non-academic reading, is a heartwarming and uplifting story of a guy relying on the positive influence of his grand-parents to escape the poverty and addiction present in his community. The appeal of this story is what makes it so entertaining and captivating. In contrast, "Appalachian Reckoning", which is a series of loosely connected essays, is pretty much throughout it's length, but especially it's start, very boring. Outside of a few essays that I found offered a similar but different take to Vance's own story, which I sorely wished were placed at the start of the collection, the whole book was a struggle to get through. Skimming through the reviews on this page, it seems that many readers skimmed through this book itself, which is not a good sign when you're trying to fight a narrative of a book people may read multiple times, watch interviews from the charismatic author, or maybe even watch the film that will be based off it. What should be a cannonade at an embellished and stereotypical narrative comes out as a weak squirt, and it really takes away from this impact of this novel, which is really sad because some of the essays I found herein are quite enjoyable. Now, I can't say that "Appalachian Reckoning" is good, but I think it has some good parts, and I think their criticisms of Vance's work is important and are worth mentioning, because some readers might get the wrong idea and think it's only a bunch of nerdy academics coping and seething because Vance is more popular than them. As an example of this, on pg.75 an essayist wastes a paragraph detailing a petty twitter spat a colleague had with Vance himself.
I think one of the easiest criticisms of this book compared to "Hillbilly Elegy" is it's length. Elegy is 264 pages. Meanwhile, "Appalachian Reckoning" is about 400 pages, and feels like 600. If you wanted to make a criticism of Vance's work that people will actually read, it should have been, at it's upper limit, having an equal page length to Elegy or even better, being shorter. I felt that huge chunks of this book were wasted space. Since you have a grouping of essays here some authors end up repeating information of who Vance is or how popular "Hillbilly Elegy" is, assuming that maybe the reader might not know what these are or needs a refresher. Assuming this book was not for the casual reader, some authors start talking about other academics or philosophers in which nobody has any idea who they are (one guy references an obscure social critic Christopher Lasch, another guy references Mark Fischer), which helps to nullify whatever point they were making to a casual reader. One guy here has an entire essay where he mainly namedrops important local figures he knows and details all their achievements which makes great reading for people outside Appalachia or America who don't know who they are (sarcasm intended). That's not to say he alone does this, because academics (including Vance himself in Elegy) have a habit of namedropping important people they know and talking about how cool they are, something that happens throughout this collection, which comes off as brown-nosing and more wasted space. Another essayist spends an entire paragraph talking about the symbolic significance of a fictional Appalachian character using an old tin can as a water pail among other forms of recycling. To a casual reader, this sort of liberal arts speak comes off as an academic defending their point of interest to other academics, judging by the length and obscurity of words used, which seems pretentious and ultimately does not add at all to the strength of arguments against Vance. As an example of what I'm talking about, check out this quote from pg.346, which I don't think was written at all for the same type of reader who enjoyed Vance's book:
If I could have chosen the way this series of essays were edited, I would have taken cues from Svetlana Alexievich, who has created some amazing books comprised almost entirely from interviews. The format of an interview would have given more structure and life to "Appalachian Reckoning", avoiding some of the repeated information and curtailing any of the name-dropping and navel gazing academic talk that are so easily included in a written account. More importantly, it would have made some of the essayists seem a bit more approachable, in the same way that Vance makes himself seem like the everyman despite his ivy league background. My favorite essays in this collection are the ones that follow Vance's cues, talking about their own struggles in life and how they succeeded in reaching the middle and higher classes, all without leaving Appalachia for good nor throwing the whole region under the bus to garner sympathy. To name a few, my favorite essayists were Ivy Brashear, Michael E. Maloney, Kirsten L. Squint, Jodie Childers, and Elizabeth Hadaway (unfortunately their essay titles are too long to be included). I wish that their essays had been the first of the series, because with how dry and academic the first few are I'm not surprised people were turned away from finishing this book out of boredom.
One of the things this work does really well is launch a criticism of Vance's work, not at the accuracy of it's claim to represent Appalachia, but at the media hype surrounding it. As a Canadian reader I had no idea Vance's book had reached so far into the political sphere, both the left and the right, and that both media and political figures were touting it to be the golden bullet to understand America's Appalachian region. This doesn't fall under a criticism of Vance's book in itself, but of his media appearances and public speeches, where he or his backers might make himself out to be the horse whisperer for a region that represent thousands of people of different races, backgrounds, and class. Some of the essays in this work do fairly bring up multiple examples of media and pundits stereotyping and homogenizing Appalachian people (as violent, racist rednecks) and I can completely understand their exasperation at Vance providing one more piece of ammunition for a narrative that the people of Appalachia have been struggling to fight against for awhile. As a Canadian, it sort of reminds me of Quebec, where Quebecois get annoyed and exasperated when they get turned into the butt of stereotypical jokes that could easily be debunked by a few moments of research or critical thinking. However, stereotypes are effective, they get rooted into the culture, and many people are led to believe (maybe by Vance himself) that you only need to read one book or listen to one person to understand the issue at hand, and the mass popularity of "Hillbilly Elegy" makes it more likely that his narrative will be the one people will base their beliefs upon, especially if they deepen pre-existing stereotypes. I was honestly shocked when one of the essays here covered the fact that in some universities this book is part of required reading for students, due to in part some misguided sense of inclusion. J.D. Vance did not write an academic book, at most it could be used for a high school book report, the fact that intellectuals are passing Vance's book around as a meaningful text is crazy to me. Only a very small portion of Vance's book deals with his ideas on public policy (things like welfare), which as a casual reader you can safely ignore, but when the people who run our society start taking Vance's words as recommendations, now I think you have a fair criticism of Hillbilly Elegy.
The one true stereotype of Appalachian people that this book doesn't diminish at all is pride. Many people are proud to be from, and continue to live in, Appalachia. Many of the essayists have a knowledge of their family history that I wish I had. They know how far back the family tree they need to go to talk about the exploits of a civil war soldier, or the struggles of someone freed from slavery. They have an interest in acknowledging the cultural works coming out of this region and more importantly, defining it's borderlands by the reaction other Americans have to what they perceived as an invasion of "violent hillbillies". Many essayists, either pulling from historical examples, or more personal modern examples, show that there was and is a stigma to those coming from this region of the United States, regardless of race. Nothing dictates otherness more than being mistreated but also having to feel the need to mask either your accent or background because of how you feel others might perceive you. Take this passage from 336 to 337:
I think one concept this book has brought to my attention is the intersection between culture and capitalism. The idea of the American Dream is wrapped up in all these narratives, including Vance's. The value of someone's experiences, at least how it's noted in Vance's account and in some of the Essays here, is if they've managed to enter the middle or upper class either despite or because of what they experienced. I personally do not think that the culture of a place should be determined by what class the majority of it's inhabitants are living in, as noted by the fact that coal mining (at least according to Vance's narrative) provided almost everyone with a middle class job, and of course, when business became unprofitable and left, it hallowed out the communities left behind. A situation in which everyone must leave to chase jobs does not lead to a creation of a stable culture, as ultimately these same jobs will leave the country itself to Mexico or SEA where employment is at it's cheapest. I think it is a shame that alot of the essayists in this book have to, on one hand, decry the use of a person's class to objectify their value, while at the same time (usually done by namedropping or talking up their credentials) a person's status is objectified via their education or job to counter Vance in saying that "Yes, someone born, raised and living in Appalachia can make it." In my mind, this just comes off as splitting hairs, whether you go to a fancy school in one part of the country or another, to a foreigner, it all looks the same. I think this book needed to provide a cultural narrative, in a concise way, to show that Vance's interpretation of things has been twisted towards personal gain or bias.
Overall, I feel like this book is a mess. However, I think it is important to read a criticism or two of Vance if you're willing to champion his work or support his politics, so outside of the few contributors I mentioned, I suggest you save yourself the boredom and, seemingly like many other readers, skim through this book.
Some quotes I liked:
"The piper we are being asked to dance to is corporate capitalism. Currently fashionable language in the social sciences unreflectively but aptly captures our intellectual subjection to capitalism when we begin to think of-and invest in-our friends and acquaintances as "social capital," the art and music we love as "cultural capital," our environment as "natural capital," and, ultimately, ourselves as readily deployable units of "human capital." In a neoliberal capitalist order that imagines us to be little more than isolated and competitive entrepreneurial selves, who better to give us hard advice about how to live and what to choose than an investment broker like J.D. Vance?" (Pg. 46)
"Indeed, because so many readers have made Vance authoritative vis-a-vis the white working class, I have come to grips with the fact that Hillbilly Elegy represents a regression in our understanding of white socioeconomic disadvantage. And that's saying a lot given the decades-even centuries-of disdain for those often referred to as "white trash." The attention that Hillbilly Elegy draws to low-income, low education whites does not foster understanding or empathy for those Vance leaves behind; rather, it cultivates judgment. Vance invites us not to see the white working class in their full complexity but instead to cast all the blame on them for their often dire circumstances. Never mind neoliberal trade policies and the decimation of unions; never mind the rise of Walmart and contingent employment; never mind crummy public education and spatial inequalities with respect to a wide range of services and infrastructure; never mind the demise of the safety net. According to Vance, "hillbillies" just need to pull themselves together, keep their families intact, go to church, work a little harder, and stop blaming the government for their woes." (Pg. 106)
"Indeed, Vance's essential message is the same as that Kevin Williamson purveyed in much harsher terms in the March 2016 issue of the National Review: "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs....The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles." What Williamson states with unmitigated vitriol and disdain, Vance states in a folksy, aw-shucks way that one reviewer referred to as "tough love," another as a "bracing tonic."" (Pg. 118)
The author has not always taken such reactions positively. In June 2017, a mild criticism on Twitter about Hillbilly Elegy's limited potential as an instructional text from southern historian Karen L. Cox generated a sharp response from Vance himself: "Congratualtions on your appointment as the spokesperson for academia," he replied. Another user then congratualated him on his appointment as the "spokesperson for Appalachia." In response to this exchange, Cox, currently at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and Emily Senefeld, a PhD candidate at the University of Virginia, started #therealappalachiasyllabus [on twitter].....Did the editor think that a casual reader would be interested in this or find it entertaining? I don't know, personally little moments like these made the book far less appealing.
I think one of the easiest criticisms of this book compared to "Hillbilly Elegy" is it's length. Elegy is 264 pages. Meanwhile, "Appalachian Reckoning" is about 400 pages, and feels like 600. If you wanted to make a criticism of Vance's work that people will actually read, it should have been, at it's upper limit, having an equal page length to Elegy or even better, being shorter. I felt that huge chunks of this book were wasted space. Since you have a grouping of essays here some authors end up repeating information of who Vance is or how popular "Hillbilly Elegy" is, assuming that maybe the reader might not know what these are or needs a refresher. Assuming this book was not for the casual reader, some authors start talking about other academics or philosophers in which nobody has any idea who they are (one guy references an obscure social critic Christopher Lasch, another guy references Mark Fischer), which helps to nullify whatever point they were making to a casual reader. One guy here has an entire essay where he mainly namedrops important local figures he knows and details all their achievements which makes great reading for people outside Appalachia or America who don't know who they are (sarcasm intended). That's not to say he alone does this, because academics (including Vance himself in Elegy) have a habit of namedropping important people they know and talking about how cool they are, something that happens throughout this collection, which comes off as brown-nosing and more wasted space. Another essayist spends an entire paragraph talking about the symbolic significance of a fictional Appalachian character using an old tin can as a water pail among other forms of recycling. To a casual reader, this sort of liberal arts speak comes off as an academic defending their point of interest to other academics, judging by the length and obscurity of words used, which seems pretentious and ultimately does not add at all to the strength of arguments against Vance. As an example of what I'm talking about, check out this quote from pg.346, which I don't think was written at all for the same type of reader who enjoyed Vance's book:
I want to tell the story of a literary tradition filled with Johnnies who love to fool. This is a literary tradition that radically challenges national progress narratives bound up in classed forms of consumption, aesthetics, and material use. Anthropologist Kathleen Stewart theorizes West Virginia's coal towns as "a space on the other side of the road," a concept influenced by the bricoleur. She argues that space and the lived cultural poetics occurring therein can interrupt the expected and naturalized, thereby functioning as "back talk" to homogenizing nationalist myths. For the story of America can't help but turn in on itself, desiring at times"cut details, sensate memories, remainders and excess excluded from its own abbreviated account." If space and narrative are inextricable, then literary representations of Appalachia are "spaces in which signs grow luminous." Appalachia's literature is full of cut details and remainders-geographical, cultural, material, formal, and rhetorical-that can be read as gaps in the seamless rhetoric of progress. As characters like Johnnie resist adherence to dominant cultural and material norms, they simultaneously reject Appalachia's construction as a deficient national ward. As literary critics, our work produces knowledge. We are recyclers who love to fool with things repurposed, reused, and reassembled. These assemblages have the potential to counteract objectifying histories of Appalachian literature. From specific subject positions, critics pursue various investments by imagining the formal and political possiblities that American literary study offers.Even if I agree with what the essayists are saying, huge chunks of this work could have been edited away to make it much more palatable to casual readers who may be looking for criticism of Vance. The crossover of the person who enjoys a narrative like "Hillbilly Elegy" and the section I just quoted has to be small. As it is right now, it just seems like a vehicle for a few Appalachian academics to pat themselves on the back.
If I could have chosen the way this series of essays were edited, I would have taken cues from Svetlana Alexievich, who has created some amazing books comprised almost entirely from interviews. The format of an interview would have given more structure and life to "Appalachian Reckoning", avoiding some of the repeated information and curtailing any of the name-dropping and navel gazing academic talk that are so easily included in a written account. More importantly, it would have made some of the essayists seem a bit more approachable, in the same way that Vance makes himself seem like the everyman despite his ivy league background. My favorite essays in this collection are the ones that follow Vance's cues, talking about their own struggles in life and how they succeeded in reaching the middle and higher classes, all without leaving Appalachia for good nor throwing the whole region under the bus to garner sympathy. To name a few, my favorite essayists were Ivy Brashear, Michael E. Maloney, Kirsten L. Squint, Jodie Childers, and Elizabeth Hadaway (unfortunately their essay titles are too long to be included). I wish that their essays had been the first of the series, because with how dry and academic the first few are I'm not surprised people were turned away from finishing this book out of boredom.
One of the things this work does really well is launch a criticism of Vance's work, not at the accuracy of it's claim to represent Appalachia, but at the media hype surrounding it. As a Canadian reader I had no idea Vance's book had reached so far into the political sphere, both the left and the right, and that both media and political figures were touting it to be the golden bullet to understand America's Appalachian region. This doesn't fall under a criticism of Vance's book in itself, but of his media appearances and public speeches, where he or his backers might make himself out to be the horse whisperer for a region that represent thousands of people of different races, backgrounds, and class. Some of the essays in this work do fairly bring up multiple examples of media and pundits stereotyping and homogenizing Appalachian people (as violent, racist rednecks) and I can completely understand their exasperation at Vance providing one more piece of ammunition for a narrative that the people of Appalachia have been struggling to fight against for awhile. As a Canadian, it sort of reminds me of Quebec, where Quebecois get annoyed and exasperated when they get turned into the butt of stereotypical jokes that could easily be debunked by a few moments of research or critical thinking. However, stereotypes are effective, they get rooted into the culture, and many people are led to believe (maybe by Vance himself) that you only need to read one book or listen to one person to understand the issue at hand, and the mass popularity of "Hillbilly Elegy" makes it more likely that his narrative will be the one people will base their beliefs upon, especially if they deepen pre-existing stereotypes. I was honestly shocked when one of the essays here covered the fact that in some universities this book is part of required reading for students, due to in part some misguided sense of inclusion. J.D. Vance did not write an academic book, at most it could be used for a high school book report, the fact that intellectuals are passing Vance's book around as a meaningful text is crazy to me. Only a very small portion of Vance's book deals with his ideas on public policy (things like welfare), which as a casual reader you can safely ignore, but when the people who run our society start taking Vance's words as recommendations, now I think you have a fair criticism of Hillbilly Elegy.
The one true stereotype of Appalachian people that this book doesn't diminish at all is pride. Many people are proud to be from, and continue to live in, Appalachia. Many of the essayists have a knowledge of their family history that I wish I had. They know how far back the family tree they need to go to talk about the exploits of a civil war soldier, or the struggles of someone freed from slavery. They have an interest in acknowledging the cultural works coming out of this region and more importantly, defining it's borderlands by the reaction other Americans have to what they perceived as an invasion of "violent hillbillies". Many essayists, either pulling from historical examples, or more personal modern examples, show that there was and is a stigma to those coming from this region of the United States, regardless of race. Nothing dictates otherness more than being mistreated but also having to feel the need to mask either your accent or background because of how you feel others might perceive you. Take this passage from 336 to 337:
My new schoolmates query if my mother were also my sister. To be "Appalachia" was to be from somewhere else, to be a punchline.....You think there can't possibly be anything triggering about eploring a digital archive in class until your professor laughs, "Why would anyone want to read a novel set in Kentucky?" You come in from delivering a conference paper on an Appalachian poet and tell a fellow graduate student about it. Her response stings like a fresh switch across a bare bottom: "Oh, I didn't know you study incest." It is easy to begin feeling spiteful about incessant "what" and "why" questions. These are questions no one asks the Shakespeare, Emerson, or Faulkner scholar.Alot of essayists make the point to say that they eventually decided to fully accept their otherness, their family and their region, and have been able to make a successful life there as proof that Appalachia is not entirely populated by violent drug addicts.
I think one concept this book has brought to my attention is the intersection between culture and capitalism. The idea of the American Dream is wrapped up in all these narratives, including Vance's. The value of someone's experiences, at least how it's noted in Vance's account and in some of the Essays here, is if they've managed to enter the middle or upper class either despite or because of what they experienced. I personally do not think that the culture of a place should be determined by what class the majority of it's inhabitants are living in, as noted by the fact that coal mining (at least according to Vance's narrative) provided almost everyone with a middle class job, and of course, when business became unprofitable and left, it hallowed out the communities left behind. A situation in which everyone must leave to chase jobs does not lead to a creation of a stable culture, as ultimately these same jobs will leave the country itself to Mexico or SEA where employment is at it's cheapest. I think it is a shame that alot of the essayists in this book have to, on one hand, decry the use of a person's class to objectify their value, while at the same time (usually done by namedropping or talking up their credentials) a person's status is objectified via their education or job to counter Vance in saying that "Yes, someone born, raised and living in Appalachia can make it." In my mind, this just comes off as splitting hairs, whether you go to a fancy school in one part of the country or another, to a foreigner, it all looks the same. I think this book needed to provide a cultural narrative, in a concise way, to show that Vance's interpretation of things has been twisted towards personal gain or bias.
Overall, I feel like this book is a mess. However, I think it is important to read a criticism or two of Vance if you're willing to champion his work or support his politics, so outside of the few contributors I mentioned, I suggest you save yourself the boredom and, seemingly like many other readers, skim through this book.
Some quotes I liked:
"The piper we are being asked to dance to is corporate capitalism. Currently fashionable language in the social sciences unreflectively but aptly captures our intellectual subjection to capitalism when we begin to think of-and invest in-our friends and acquaintances as "social capital," the art and music we love as "cultural capital," our environment as "natural capital," and, ultimately, ourselves as readily deployable units of "human capital." In a neoliberal capitalist order that imagines us to be little more than isolated and competitive entrepreneurial selves, who better to give us hard advice about how to live and what to choose than an investment broker like J.D. Vance?" (Pg. 46)
"Indeed, because so many readers have made Vance authoritative vis-a-vis the white working class, I have come to grips with the fact that Hillbilly Elegy represents a regression in our understanding of white socioeconomic disadvantage. And that's saying a lot given the decades-even centuries-of disdain for those often referred to as "white trash." The attention that Hillbilly Elegy draws to low-income, low education whites does not foster understanding or empathy for those Vance leaves behind; rather, it cultivates judgment. Vance invites us not to see the white working class in their full complexity but instead to cast all the blame on them for their often dire circumstances. Never mind neoliberal trade policies and the decimation of unions; never mind the rise of Walmart and contingent employment; never mind crummy public education and spatial inequalities with respect to a wide range of services and infrastructure; never mind the demise of the safety net. According to Vance, "hillbillies" just need to pull themselves together, keep their families intact, go to church, work a little harder, and stop blaming the government for their woes." (Pg. 106)
"Indeed, Vance's essential message is the same as that Kevin Williamson purveyed in much harsher terms in the March 2016 issue of the National Review: "The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs....The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles." What Williamson states with unmitigated vitriol and disdain, Vance states in a folksy, aw-shucks way that one reviewer referred to as "tough love," another as a "bracing tonic."" (Pg. 118)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews