Goodman’s book really does not lay out Maimonides’ theological worldview; rather, it twists and distorts his views in a disgraceful way, and one should not rely on even half a word written there.

I’m not impressed by his interpretations either (to the extent that I know them). But I don’t think one should rely on books and interpretations. You can read and see what is convincing and what is not.

Suppose someone were to publish a book called “The Thought of Rabbi Michael Abraham” and in it he wrote things you never said, never wrote, and that never even crossed your mind.
And not only that, but he would attribute to you utter nonsense and empty absurdities that no reasonable person could accept.
And not only that, but the very views that you sharply argue against in your books he would describe as your own doctrine.
I imagine he would earn a particularly sharp rebuke from you.
And if that happened after a long life, I assume you would be glad that someone would do that in your place.
And you wouldn’t say, “I don’t think one should rely on books and interpretations. You can read and see what is convincing and what is not,” because you know that very many people will not go check in your books whether what was written in your name is true or not. Because that is the way of most people, to believe things like that. And therefore it is definitely very important to say about such books that one should not rely at all on what is written in them, so that the reader knows what is in front of him.

Either I didn’t understand, or you didn’t. Maimonides is right there before us, and therefore it doesn’t matter what Goodman writes about him, and there is no reason to form an opinion about Goodman the person. One should examine his arguments. That’s all.