Byerman’s analysis needed some work. With jumbled arguments and no clear goal, his report appeared fraudulent, as if he himself didn’t know what he was arguing. He consistently took parts of the text and over analyzed their significance, sometimes even changing the plot entirely so his argument would fit. For example, when he talks about Nettie leaving after Mr.____ attempts to rape her, which is untrue, it makes that argument flimsy. Furthermore, the oscillation between the use of Sofie instead of Sofia is a clear sign that his essay was either poorly produced with little editing, or he is clueless and he wasted his time and ours. The points he attempted to make were interesting (eg. the fairytale) but even after reading the book I fail to see any connection. I’m glad I read this after otherwise I would be very confused what messages to look for.
Skip to content
Great literature does not send messages! It raises questions and explores possibilities.
