Confusion in the Landscape for a Good Woman I found Landscape for a Good Woman to be a confusing landscape, the contours of which are difficult to follow. I don't mean to say that I didn't 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 you choose to write this way? Instead of giving us a straight account of his childhood and allowing us to make our own inferences, I feel like he told a story and, at the same time, told us how to interpret it and gave us a critique of it. own and others' interpretations of its history. Steedman begins the section titled “Stories” by saying that “this book…is about interpretations.” Of course, all stories, fiction or nonfiction, are interpretations of events and characters, told from the author's point of view. I don't find the interpretations themselves problematic; perhaps what I find confusing is that Steedman gives us such different interpretations...