It felt like more of a brief literary criticism than a book review to me. Or, more likely, something in between the two.
I *think* (and I'm googling here too, because I never came across this as a school of criticism in my English major days, so I could be completely off-base here) the last line means something like, "this book is more about a factual approach to the trail, rather than examining Bryson's personal experience and how it may have been similar or different to anyone else's experience with the trail." Less introspective, less self-examination, more talking about objective facts.
I don't think, personally, that that's a particularly valid criticism. There's nothing about the genre that says you must be introspective; of course, maybe he is being contradictory by saying he just wasn't changed by the trail. Not everyone will become a thru-hiker, and the fact of the matter is that more people will identify with Bryson (being unchanged and unwilling to continue, I guess) than with some huge mountaintop moment and pushing through to finish the trail (going by statistics).
But I couldn't really say. I've never read the book. Then again, I didn't read most of the books I wrote papers about for my English degree
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk