Having also done this same question, I found your approach to it interesting in terms of the way that you structured it. There was a very clear, straightforward nature to it with your use of subheadings addressing each point made by the critic. I really enjoyed your ability to define certain points of the critic’s review, ideas such as ‘unrealistic characters’ or ‘a soppy romance’ as you excellently highlight the subjectivity of these perspectives, as the critic’s review is indeed quite forward. Seeing your own personal perspective on what it is to be human (and you do imply it as your own opinion, and not an inarguable fact), and what makes a text to a soppy romance really shed light on the aesthetic of literature as it is indeed something that cannot be so strongly argued for or against as the critic seemingly does. Your references towards the novel were also simplified but this allowed more focus on your arguments rather than become just a retelling of the novel. I would have loved to have seen you go into more depth about the relevance that Emma has to wider human society, perhaps even look a bit into psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud to prove your point a bit further, with some backup. His theories explore a bit into the idea of connecting with ourselves which hopefully you’d enjoy regardless. I hope this helps!
(This is a review of the following post: https://nataliemessina.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/dear-critic/ )