How does Jeffrey Meyers start the essay "Hemingway's Primitivism and 'Indian Camp'" and why does he start it this way? What is he trying to show with each critic's explanation for the Indian's suicide?

Meyers starts the essay by disparaging other literary critics’s analyses of Hemingway’s story “Indian Camp”. He tells us that other critics have “struggled” to understand the story’s two “shocking incidents” and that some of their interpretations have been “absurd”. Meyers accuses other literary critics of not fully understanding the story because they did not fully understand Hemingway’s attitude towards and knowledge of “primitive people”.
Meyers tells us that at least twenty other critics have come to the same conclusion about the Indian’s suicide, based on a line of dialogue from one of the white characters in the story. He makes fun of these unnamed critics by saying that they “dutifully repeated” this “obvious explanation,” implying that they have not understood the story but have merely regurgitated fashionable opinions.
Meyers goes from mocking those whose analyses are too “obvious” to mocking those whose analyses include “disturbing distortions” and accuses both Grimes and Flora of making statements about the suicide without any supporting evidence. Meyers also, polemically, accuses all of the women who have written about the story of being “feminists—who predictably impose rather than extract a meaning.” He accuses one woman scholar of going to an “absurd extreme” and makes a pun on her name to ridicule her.
Meyers uses words like “unconvincing”, “exaggerated”, “against all reason”, “sentimental”, “deliberately ignores”, “the opposite of what Hemingway intended”, “farfetched”, “no evidence”, “little more than subjective” and “strained” to describe the other critics’s analyses. He goes through and lists all of these explanations as a kind of teaser for his own summary of Hemingway’s intended meaning of the Indian’s suicide. Other critics are framed as having incomplete arguments or explanations, as “merely repeating, as literary critics tend to do”. Meyer mentions the limitations of “New Critical” readings of the story; he sees all of these other interpretations as adhering to the fashionable neo-Formalist school of analysis which view a text in isolation and as a merely aesthetic object.
Meyer contrasts the conclusions of these New Criticism scholars against his own detailed anthropological research. After he tells us about all of the incorrect theories, Meyer goes into an anthropological discussion of taboo and sympathetic pregnancy (or couvade). He also goes into a detailed description of some of the other ways that Hemingway has depicted “primitive people” (Meyer’s words). Meyer does this because his explanation for the Indian’s suicide relies heavily on knowledge which cannot be gleaned from the story alone. Meyer wants us to know that understanding this story will take more than a formalist approach, we need more information.
By starting the essay disparaging the other scholars Meyer is effectively telling us that any analysis of the story which is not grounded in a deep understanding of Hemingway’s life and anthropological knowledge is faulty and should be ridiculed.