Passage Summary: A critic argues that because interpreting a book is more about making up your own meaning than finding the author's original point, the resulting review says more about the person writing the review than the person who wrote the book.

Conclusion: A critic's interpretation of a book reveals more about the critic's own perspective than it does about the author's perspective.

Reasoning: Meaning is not fixed, and because critics impose meaning rather than finding it, they do not need to account for what the author actually intended.

Analysis: The argument moves from the idea that interpretations do not need to consider the writer's intent to the conclusion that they actually reveal more about the critic. For this to hold true, there must be a connection between 'imposing meaning' and 'revealing the self.' We need to assume that if an interpretation isn't discovering the author's intent, it must be reflecting the critic's own traits or biases. Ask yourself: if the interpretation didn't reveal anything about the critic, would the conclusion still make sense?