That's not what I did. Read better. I state that it's garbage because the very first thing you learn when analysing literature is separating men from their ideas. This article doesn't do that and proceeds to find meaningless conclusions.

Some currently-fashionable methods of literary analysis deliberately ignore author biography, but I don't think most people who favor those would claim there's never any reason for or value in examining the biographies of authors. I don't think they'd suggest people, say, entirely ignore the biography of an author forever and in all cases. Besides, it's common for one person to apply multiple approaches for a really deep analysis of a work, whether independently or together.

Plus, this is a review of a biography, so it's not the reviewer's fault the book is concerned with biography.

Erroring out at the first detail that contradicts a generic principle is a classic type of shallow dismissal.