PanThe Times Literary Supplement (UK)Martin’s book includes a substantial amount of archival research which will undoubtedly be a boon to scholars of the dictionary wars. His research fleshes out the biographies of some of the players ... There are nuanced arguments to be made about this era and this rivalry. It is a shame, then, that Martin flattens Worcester and Webster—and therefore the story—into Good Lexicographer and Bad Lexicographer ... There are grains of truth in all these depictions, but Martin’s commitment to the Worcester-as-underdog narrative leads him into some shaky scholarly territory. Martin often waves away charges against Worcester that should be investigated ... Martin also indulges in some logical leaps not supported by textual evidence ... There is, however, a more significant problem to contend with: the book contains many errors, particularly quotations from easily accessible primary sources ... The typos, misconstructions and mistakes to be found are so numerous as to cast doubt on the accuracy of the transcribed manuscript and archival material that Martin uses and which the reader can’t check. Moreover, Martin selectively edits many of his quotations, sometimes sloppily, in ways that mislead the reader.
