|
The article in the OP seems a bit of a "backhanded" compliment and tears down King as much as lifting him up. Some of the things I agree with, but others I do not.
I also followed the article's link back to the original article for which this one was a rebuttal. It was reasons why the contributor of that particular article has resisted reading King over the years. To me, at least, it seemed less derogatory of King's work than the defending article.
|