Trouble is, IMO, Schwartz failed to prove his allegations that Trump is a "sociopath" etc. On the contrary, in the lengthy article, Trump comes out as a rather nice individual. While reading the article, I got to thinking that Schwartz's biggest beef against the GOP presidential candidate was possibly rooted in a bit of envy, that Trump has continued to be so successful in business. (It should be noted that one of the criticisms often leveled against Trump is that he had several bankruptcies however, this seems to have been true of most who have made a success in business - including greats like Wanamaker and Macy, and is where the term "fourth time" comes from, i.e. after three bankruptcies, the fourth time might be the success.
Most writers, if being honest, will describe the many rejections they received, before they finally got their first chance at being published. Hemingway described wall papering one of the walls in his home with rejection slips!
In the following analysis, I give details on why, I feel that Schwartz did not prove his allegations about Trump.
First, in his attempt to "prove" that Trump is a "sociopath", Schwartz alleged that:
"Trump prefers TV as news source"... well, newsflash, all the presidents and busy people do that, in addition to a great percentage of the American public. If this makes Trump a "sociopath" then, most of us other Americans are also guilty as charged.
"Trump has a short attention span" states Schwartz...My answer to this is that Trump is probably doing a lot of multi level processing in handling his businesses, and has what Dr Ted Hallowell, PhD, calls a "race car brain" which appears as a short attention span but is capable of thinking through many things simultaneously, a talent only observed in a small number of intelligent individuals (including Dr Hallowell, himself). Dr Hallowell says another name for this, is "a dose of American life"
"Trump hasn't read a book straight through his adult life" is the next allegation... Schwartz bases this on seeing no books on Trump's desk however, many highly intelligent, but busy people, read audio books or read on the computer (including our son who has a PhD and is very busy)... No basis for this allegation either...
As for Donald Trump being incorrect in citing a book title, that is a common error, especially for a very busy person. I keep a database of books I read - if I didn't, I would find it difficult to remember titles and authors and I read A LOT.
It seemed to me that despite Donald Trump allowing Schwartz to shadow him for 18 months, Schwartz understood neither Donald Trump nor what it takes to run big businesses as Trump does and that Trump allowed Schwartz to shadow him, suggests Trump had nothing to hide which impressed me.
Schwartz admitted not being honest in his book about Trump ... which leads me to wonder how I would know if he's being honest now.
Schwartz describes Trump as having an "insatiable hunger for money, praise and celebrity" but this again, describes most Americans and probably is true of Schwartz himself.
When Schwartz quoted Trump as saying that it was "Possible that the president [Obama] was born in Africa" as a "proof" of his allegation that Mr Trump is ignorant, this again falls greatly short of proving the allegation and suggests it is Mr Schwartz who is lacking in facts. In fact, it is likely true, that Mr Obama was born in Africa - at least, this was what the President claimed in his book, DREAMS of MY FATHER written a few years before he became president... however, the common conservative allegation that this makes Mr Obama not a native born American is false - those of us who studied "government" know that if born to an American mother even if the birth takes place in another country, the baby is considered a natural American.
The New Yorker article stated that Mr Trump was angry because Schwartz spoke out negatively about him - well who wouldn't be - Schwartz a life long liberal, has an agenda - Trump allowed him to shadow him for 18 months, and now, with the election in the horizon, Mr Schwartz basically turned on Trump, a move which is a bit, ethically challenged to say the least.
If the article was trying to prove what a "sociopath" (Schwartz's allegation) Trump is, it failed miserably. Schwartz did NOT, in any shape or form, prove his allegations and actually, Trump comes out looking like a kind of a nice guy and a rather impressive person in the article.