Meta-Authorial-Analysis-Meta-Meta

Some writer recently said: "The story[titled "The Man Who Lived Underground", by Richard Wright] ending with the death of [Fred] Daniels shows this purposefulness in society’s refusal to accept the truth. Just as his killer, Lawson - who might be closer to the truth than anyone but Daniels - says, “You’ve got to shoot his kind. They’d wreck things” (Gates Jr 1470). They would “wreck things” by finding a way to share the truth: that all of American society is equally guilty for racism against African Americans in this country and the way to the truth is through accepting responsibility, just as Fred Daniels had." Is this author in tune with a certain style here? Is it good? Is it effective? Is there a voice, tone, or stylistic emphasis that would make it better? Does this writer owe it to his reader to be his best, or is it the readers duty to be HIS best - as one of us might suggest - ? What if he said "I", or "motherfucker"? Who is the audience? I say there is certainly a style, based on what is here. It seems efficient, but "good" - I do not do. Effective? - it seems, because I get the idea even with the short excerpt. The voice seems academic but interpretive. The final couple of questions are not for me - well who read this anyway naw? THE END IS NIGH! ?