So here we have Mr. Smith responding to Mr. Anderson. All of a sudden I feel like I should say, “Missster ANDersssson…,” in that strange diction of Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith in The Matrix. (I’m pulling off my mirrored shades as I do so.) But we have more important matters at hand.
I am above all grateful to have readers as serious and studious as Matt Anderson. And I’m confident, without question, that we’re passionate about the same things. So I’m very happy to accept an invitation to provide a little response to his careful, informative review. He’s done a remarkable job of condensing an overly ambitious argument into his clear summary—though I do hope those with more questions will follow up Matt’s encouragement to read the book. Our exchange here is no substitute for that.
In the interest of generating conversation rather than “defending” some position, let me respond to Matthew’s three substantive criticisms:
