I can accept that people don't like being cast into a stereotype; that makes sense. But if a story revolves around some element of society that is real and true, then it should be fair game. One could argue that there's a responsibility to present a wholistic painting of a community, but if you do that, the core story gets lost among the details. And understand that Vance's story is one in millions. There are likely many other stories from Appalachia that are equally or more interesting, but if they revolve around people living mostly undramatic lives, then there's little chance anyone will be willing to read about them.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller