Confusion in Landscape for a Good Woman Essay -- Landscape for a Good

Confusion in Landscape for a Good Woman I found Landscape for a Good Woman to be a confusing landscape, one whose contours are difficult to follow. I don't mean to imply that I did not find the book fascinating, but it was so rich and the stories and scholarly discussions were so intertwined that it was difficult to keep track of what Steedman was trying to convey. Why did she choose to write in this way? Instead of giving us a straight narrative about her childhood and allowing us to make our own inferences, I feel as if she's told a story and, at the same time, she's told us how to interpret that story and has given us a critique of her own and others' interpretations of her story. Steedman does begin the section titled "Stories" by saying that "this book. . . is about interpretations." Of course, all stories, fiction or non-fiction, are interpretations of events and characters, told from the perspective of the author. I don't find the interpretations themselves to be problematic; maybe what I find confusing is that Steedman gives us interpretations from so many different...