© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
No offense, but this is not really a book review, this is more of its own academic paper. Which would normally require it’s own peer review and input from Neville where possible and appropriate. Also the first rule of a book review is it is a review of the book not the author. There seems to be a fair amount of vitriol towards the author here which I find a bit over the top, just my opinion. Perhaps there is some previous interaction you have had with Neville in the blogosphere?
“Besides,” said Mr Norrell, “I really have no desire to write reviews of other people’s books. Modern publications upon magic are the most pernicious things in the world, full of misinformation and wrong opinions.” “Then sir, you may say so. The ruder you are, the more the editors will be delighted.” “But it is my own opinions which I wish to make better known, not other people’s.” “Ah, but, sir,” said Lascelles, “it is precisely by passing judgements upon other people’s work and pointing out their errors that readers can be made to understand your own opinions better. It is the easiest thing in the world to turn a review to one’s own ends. One only need mention the book once or twice and for the rest of the article one may develop one’s theme just as one chuses. It is, I assure you, what every body else does.”
From Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, (2004), p. 120.
Interested readers may consult my March 2020 paper (https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/pitfalls-of-the-ngram-viewer/), in which I lay out my 2019 research on the popularity of the phrase “infinite goodness” over the centuries. According to the widest ranging English textual sources I was able to consult, having made large corpora myself, the peak popularity of this phrase could have been in the 1500s.
It is possible that Neville obtained the idea to research the phrase “infinite goodness” from my paper on the limitations of the Ngram Viewer.