{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032208588957055216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018404907975460124, 'mean_word_length': 4.852017937219731, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Structures of Popularity in the Early Modern Book Trade

We are grateful to the editors of Shakespeare Quarterly for the opportunity to reply briefly to Peter W. M. Blayney's response to our article, "The Popularity of Playbooks Revisited,' both of which appeared in the spring 2005 issue of this journal.1 Many of Blayney's remarks concern differences between his preferred methods of counting and our own. Fortunately for readers not wishing to get bogged down in methodological detail, in every case of importance our respective analyses yield almost exactly the same results. Blayney calculates that 78.7 percent of all STC entries are for speculative books; our figure is 79.0 percent (? 1.4 percent).2 Since our calculation is derived from a sample while Blayney's is based on an examination of every entry in the STC from 1583 to 1640, his figure is likely the more accurate (and therefore the one that we ourselves plan to use in future studies), although the difference is obviously negligible.3 Because our"speculative rates" match, so do our calculations of the market share of playbooks among all speculative books; as Blayney writes, he "cannot fault either the approach or the results."4 With reprint rates, too, our calculations track closely; as Blayney writes,"the overall picture ... is