On Reading Anselm and His Ontological Argument

Reviewing Anselm, it strikes me that his so-called "ontological argument" leads him into odd places. One would want to say not that the argument proves that God exists, as he claimed, but that the argument shows what, if he exists, God would have to be. But it strikes me that all the characteristics of God exclude from God most of the things we find to be good. God, it is said, is not just good, but goodness itself (an inheritance from Boethius), but most human goods are tied to time and to decay and to struggle and to death, our perception of beauty and our experience of love, human forgiveness and compassion, these don't seem to be a mirror of the divine love (as Anselm comprehended the divine) because the divine love is without injury; divine love lacks what is essential to human love. One has to conclude that Anselm's ontological argument fails to understand what God must be or that God created time and materiality in order to complete himself--which is of course heresy. But it must be thought.