Anatomy of criticism

Many times in reading Anatomy of Criticism I got completely lost. I find this article very confusing in some parts, and not so much in others. Some specific instances of parts that don’t make sense to me are when Frye says, “The only way to forestall the work of criticism is through censorship, which as the same relation to criticism that lynching has to justice.” I think that Frye opposes censorship, but I’m not sure why. He does not elaborate on their relationship to one another. Another part that lost me was when he says that Shakespeare’s own account of what he was trying to do in Hamlet would not be a definitive criticism, nor would a performance of the play under his direction be a definitive performance. Why? I don’t understand what this means. I understand that Frye is arguing that a critic is a separate animal from an artist, and that both are in a sense dealing with different art forms, but I don’t understand why an artist could not also be a critic. What about David Foster Wallace? He was an artist and also wrote analytical works of criticism, is Frye saying that those analytical works are null and void as true criticism because Wallace was also an artist? And what is determinism? The example Frye gives is if a “scholar with a special interest in geography or economics expresses that interest by the rhetorical device of putting his favorite study into a casual relationship with whatever interests him less. Such a method gives one the illusion of explaining one’s subject while studying it, thus wasting no time.” WHAT? I could not even begin to explain what that means. What does that mean?? There are many more examples of areas in this reading that I just don’t understand. What are some other thoughts on this writing? Can anyone simplify some of Frye’s arguments for me? Because I feel like they might be applicable to our discussions on criticism.