It is good to be able to read about the man in his own words. What comes across is that his vision was far simpler than has subsequently been presumed. He was an articulate churchman who found himself in charge of a powerful and, frankly, disparate movement. Throughout the book, you can feel his simple ethos of non-violent protest. This, to him, was as important as the end result. The book has been sympathetically edited but the constant throwing-in of letters, quotes, etc does disjoint it somewhat. To me, a white englishman, this was a real eye-opener into a situation that should not even have been occuring in the latter half of the twentieth century. MLK's own diary keeping was obviously not of a uniform standard. The chapters on the Montgomery protest are full of the atmosphere and tension that must have existed then. Later chapters on (for example) Memphis are much more matter-of-fact. There is no doubt that he was a great orator but I think he lost some of his story-telling talent along the way. The book never recovers once the early writing style dwindles.