Review: The Man Who Could Be King
The Man Who Could Be King by John Ripin Miller
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Important discussion, interesting topic and moment in history
I was distracted by the narrator and may have enjoyed it more if it was just a straight historical text rather than storytelling by a fictitious witness.
One component that bothered me: the apologist tone describing GW, as incredible as he was in many respects, as uncomfortable with slavery fell a bit flat to me. I think it is important to recognize times were different rather than put modern ideas and hang them as a mantle on our past leaders.
He was in many respects the perfect person for the role he played in our nations history. Blaming his wife for his being a slave owner just ignores the fact that there was an entire system in place that was horrible and wrong and allowed them to be in the position he was in. It did not add much to this particularly story either, so why was it even brought up? I suppose speaking to the the description of his character but would a person such as the narrator was supposed to be - a member of the Society of Friends not lambast the entire institution rather than defend one man? Just my thoughts.
View all my reviews
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Important discussion, interesting topic and moment in history
I was distracted by the narrator and may have enjoyed it more if it was just a straight historical text rather than storytelling by a fictitious witness.
One component that bothered me: the apologist tone describing GW, as incredible as he was in many respects, as uncomfortable with slavery fell a bit flat to me. I think it is important to recognize times were different rather than put modern ideas and hang them as a mantle on our past leaders.
He was in many respects the perfect person for the role he played in our nations history. Blaming his wife for his being a slave owner just ignores the fact that there was an entire system in place that was horrible and wrong and allowed them to be in the position he was in. It did not add much to this particularly story either, so why was it even brought up? I suppose speaking to the the description of his character but would a person such as the narrator was supposed to be - a member of the Society of Friends not lambast the entire institution rather than defend one man? Just my thoughts.
View all my reviews
Comments