Opinion: What calls to boycott ‘The Woman King’ are really saying
I’ve read a number of book reviews lately that seem to think the only way a book is “interesting” is if it challenges orthodoxy. But such a belief system is not healthy, not just because it leads to readers being bored and disengaged or because it perpetuates the notion of the author as a passive recipient of the world’s attention while the writer is simply there to provide them with a means to express themselves by writing about a topic in a novelistic way.
I don’t think that’s what this book is about. To the contrary, I think it is about what is actually the most important question to ask for a book to be good, to be interesting, or to be any of the other values we hold dear.
“The Woman King” is not a book of questions, but a book that examines a very particular question that is at stake in American politics right now.
In an effort to gain political power or more precisely, to acquire enough power so that she could make life decisions on her own terms rather than as the will of the state, a number of politicians are making moves that not only violate the basic tenets of the Constitution, but also threaten to unravel the very fabric of our society.
To be on the right side of this issue, a reader needs to understand the problem as it relates to the state.
For “The Woman King,” this means understanding the history of states that have declared themselves sovereign over the people or citizens of this republic.
As I mentioned earlier, this book is not about the question of whether or not the United States needs a formal government to protect it from the threat of foreign enemies. That question is not a valid one. If we were to eliminate the government, we would still have the military and the police.
However, given the problem of having a government that is trying to take on a
