Thank you so much for finding the time to read my book and write a review here. I am deeply grateful!
I do need to clear up one important matter regarding your statement about "a preference for the Anglo-Saxon Runes over the ones of the Elder Futhark", as that is not correct. My book is exclusively about the runes of the Elder Futhark (and I have used their Norse names). I do not work with the Anglo Saxon Futhorc but, as a Dutch person, I do also work with the Frisian Runes (who are closely related to the Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian rune rows). To sharpen the focus and avoid confusing readers, a chapter I wrote about the Frisian Runes was deleted from the book during the editing process.
I would also like to point out that the book does not only have a Reading List (again, requested by my Editor to make things easier for the average reader) but also Endnotes (p. 235 - 249) providing the source for all material that is referenced in the book.
I absolutely love what you write about "approaching the runes as living presences, whose wisdom speaks to the soul"! Like you I have huge issues with the current "spiritual fast food culture". Working with the runes is really about building a long-term relationship with their indwelling spirits.
Goodness, I am so sorry! I was confused by conflicting statements about which set of runes you had preference for! There is one statement at the beginning of last para in the introduction, on p xxi. And yet another one on p 10 - this is what confused me. I can amend this. It was the lack of alphabetisation of the bibliography that I was referring to. I am also a stickler for indexes and make them for my own books, as I know I will want to look up things again, especially a few years later when I will not be able. I am very glad of your notes too! But I love the book and think it is a very worthy addition to my shelf!
I would be extremely grateful if you made the correction that this book focusses on the runes of the Elder Futhark. That is not just a personal rune row preference, it is the focus of the entire body of work presented in the book!
On p. 10 I do indeed make a very brief mention of the Frisian Runes just to explain my personal background in terms of this material (as I don't live in my country of birth and I don't write in my mother tongue).
I have not yet shared your review on social media because I don't want to confuse people nor do I want to put a header on such a post explaining that you got essential information wrong (because that would feel disrespectful). Once you amend this, of course I will share the link (over the weekend, when people generally have a bit more time for social media) and hopefully send a subscriber or two your way.
As the current version has gone out to your entire audience, would it be possible to also mention the correction in a future piece? Most of your readers will read this on their phone and never see the correction.
I know that this is a Big Ask, but I hope it will be possible to set the record straight.
I also promise that I will bear your feedback about an Index in mind for future books.
It is wonderful to hear that you love the book! Thank you so much!
PS Maybe I should also add that these rune rows are all very different: from different periods and locations, they drop runes (the Younger Futhark has 8 runes less than the Elder Futhark), the order is changed completely and then runes are added again (up to 33 Runes in the Anglo Saxon Futhorc, depending on what material you include or exclude). For all of those reasons (very significant differences!) the material I present would never work if people tried apply it to a different rune row. It is not just a detail, it is the very heart of the matter!
Dear Caitlin,
Thank you so much for finding the time to read my book and write a review here. I am deeply grateful!
I do need to clear up one important matter regarding your statement about "a preference for the Anglo-Saxon Runes over the ones of the Elder Futhark", as that is not correct. My book is exclusively about the runes of the Elder Futhark (and I have used their Norse names). I do not work with the Anglo Saxon Futhorc but, as a Dutch person, I do also work with the Frisian Runes (who are closely related to the Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian rune rows). To sharpen the focus and avoid confusing readers, a chapter I wrote about the Frisian Runes was deleted from the book during the editing process.
I would also like to point out that the book does not only have a Reading List (again, requested by my Editor to make things easier for the average reader) but also Endnotes (p. 235 - 249) providing the source for all material that is referenced in the book.
I absolutely love what you write about "approaching the runes as living presences, whose wisdom speaks to the soul"! Like you I have huge issues with the current "spiritual fast food culture". Working with the runes is really about building a long-term relationship with their indwelling spirits.
With gratitude and appreciation, Imelda
Goodness, I am so sorry! I was confused by conflicting statements about which set of runes you had preference for! There is one statement at the beginning of last para in the introduction, on p xxi. And yet another one on p 10 - this is what confused me. I can amend this. It was the lack of alphabetisation of the bibliography that I was referring to. I am also a stickler for indexes and make them for my own books, as I know I will want to look up things again, especially a few years later when I will not be able. I am very glad of your notes too! But I love the book and think it is a very worthy addition to my shelf!
I would be extremely grateful if you made the correction that this book focusses on the runes of the Elder Futhark. That is not just a personal rune row preference, it is the focus of the entire body of work presented in the book!
On p. 10 I do indeed make a very brief mention of the Frisian Runes just to explain my personal background in terms of this material (as I don't live in my country of birth and I don't write in my mother tongue).
I have not yet shared your review on social media because I don't want to confuse people nor do I want to put a header on such a post explaining that you got essential information wrong (because that would feel disrespectful). Once you amend this, of course I will share the link (over the weekend, when people generally have a bit more time for social media) and hopefully send a subscriber or two your way.
As the current version has gone out to your entire audience, would it be possible to also mention the correction in a future piece? Most of your readers will read this on their phone and never see the correction.
I know that this is a Big Ask, but I hope it will be possible to set the record straight.
I also promise that I will bear your feedback about an Index in mind for future books.
It is wonderful to hear that you love the book! Thank you so much!
From sunny Sweden, Imelda
PS Maybe I should also add that these rune rows are all very different: from different periods and locations, they drop runes (the Younger Futhark has 8 runes less than the Elder Futhark), the order is changed completely and then runes are added again (up to 33 Runes in the Anglo Saxon Futhorc, depending on what material you include or exclude). For all of those reasons (very significant differences!) the material I present would never work if people tried apply it to a different rune row. It is not just a detail, it is the very heart of the matter!
dear Imelda
I have amended it briefly this morning and taken out the offending sentence entirely]