{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03567787971457696, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004077471967380225, 'mean_word_length': 4.776470588235294, '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}}
Bureau of Missing Persons: Writing the Secret Lives of Fathers (review)

actually having read it” (171). This sentiment recalls one of Italo Calvino’s first definitions of a Great Book: “The classics are those books about which you usually hear people saying ‘I’m rereading . . . ’ never, “I’m reading’” (3). Fishelov’s project is of great value. By proposing a quantitative solution to an impossibly complicated problem it fashions a meaningful return to the question of the canon. Though the empirical model presented in the study raises potential objections, the writer repeatedly shows an awareness of the possible limitations associated with the filters and other search tools available to us at present. The need to perfect the method notwithstanding, the book may certainly be read as a pioneering study into a new way of thinking about aesthetics, literature, and classroom curricula in the twenty-first century — and as such is sure to draw much interest in years to come.