If you want to write a review of AT 333, go ahead and do it. I keep mentioning that my fundamental problem is that you use the review as a springboard to discuss a lot of stuff that isn't in Grimm, while ignoring what IS in Grimm.

It would be like discussing lay investiture disputes in the Middle Ages under the aegis of writing a review of The Name of the Rose. Tangentially relevant? Perhaps. But a review is, by its nature, the discussion of a book. If there is an element in the book that is hinted at in obscure terms, but which was explicit in previous tellings of a tale, then it would be relevant. However, what you talk about is completely missing from Grimm.

Furthermore, your inductive reasoning for why it is missing is wholly unsatisfactory and completely lacking any factual evidence to back it up. The link you provided does nothing to assist this situation. In fact, it would imply that the origin of the "blood and flesh" metaphor is one that was a Jewish rejection of Christianity, rather than a Protestant commentary on transubstantiation.

Once more, though, I have to remind you that none of this is even present in Grimm. Theoretically, the Grimms would have encountered this if it were relevant for German Lutherans, as they traveled the entire country (note the Low German usages in many stories).

You waste your time talking about an element that isn't present or even hinted at and that has nothing to do with the Grimms' book, as part of the main review. That's just terrible reviewing.

At the same time, there are dozens of juicy topics IN the Grimm tales. The rampant anti-Semitism is particularly relevant, coming as it does about 100 years before the Holocaust and in the context of the German national awakening. The linguistic component of the stories is considerable, as is the use of onomatopoeia, rhyme and word play. The shocking treatment of children by parents was harsh even in the context of the times (as I mentioned, Hänsel and Grethel's own mother wants to cast them out into the forest in the first version of that story; I use the orthography for "Gretel" that I found in my copy of the text). The national obsession with fairy tales as part of the folk-culture of the nation is significant, but rather than discuss that context, you make the misleading statements that the books "weren't for children" but then "degenerated" over time into such.

Surely you can see that you're not reviewing Grimm at all, in the final analysis. Your stubborn persistence in ignoring this reality and defending yourself at all costs are pushing me to "skirt the edges of ad hominem attacks", as you put it.