The two books I mentioned were debated as much for their content as for the provocative title, though I might add that the use of a provocative title to maximize sales by manufacturing controversy is hardly something to be celebrated, but rather represents the decline of political discourse.
Regardless, I don't think that unhappiness of a work's subject with the portrayal therein necessarily carries any weight. Demonstrable inaccuracy would be a valid critique, but portraits can be both truthful and unflattering.
"The two books I mentioned were debated as much for their content as for the provocative title, though I might add that the use of a provocative title to maximize sales by manufacturing controversy is hardly something to be celebrated, but rather represents the decline of political discourse."
I also notice that I didn't say if I agreed or disagreed with the practice, nor have I read either book. Marketing is quite a nasty subject in its own right.
"Regardless, I don't think that unhappiness of a work's subject with the portrayal therein necessarily carries any weight. Demonstrable inaccuracy would be a valid critique, but portraits can be both truthful and unflattering."
Well...it was nicely written. Argued, not so much. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and I'm not interested in carrying any water for Hochschild - I have yet to read the book and it's focus seems too narrow and shallow to me - I don't really need another explanation of how conservatives think because I've immerse myself in conservative thought and conversations systematically for a good 15 years now.
Regardless, I don't think that unhappiness of a work's subject with the portrayal therein necessarily carries any weight. Demonstrable inaccuracy would be a valid critique, but portraits can be both truthful and unflattering.