The book is evidence of who he is on the inside? Seriously? That's your argument?
You think the totality of his person is expressed in 300ish pages?
I seriously hope you're joking.
Why does the totality of his personality need to be summed up in the book? Isn't it enough that many personality traits are exhibited? I don't need to know every single facet of someones personality to dislike enough about them to form a judgement. In this case you have a wealth of information to base judgement on.
I really do not understand how you can argue that an autobiography has no merit when judging someones life. It is a primary source of information that directly relates to his personality.
If Hughes were a famous politician being studied in a history class do you think his autobiography would be tossed aside as worthless when evaluating his character?
If you were asked to write a history paper 75 years from now on Hughes personality where would you gather better
evidence from? You could meet with Hughes many times and not learn as much about him as you did from a single reading of the book.
300 pages is a lot of time to show consistent personality traits that we as fans have also noticed previously in interviews and on TUF. To act as though an autobiography cannot be used as evidence when judging someones personality I just cannot understand.