…well, it would have been, but for some reason I kept struggling to get through it. I thought highly of it, but my secret shame was that my admiration for the book was based mostly on the first two hundred or so pages. It took slogging effort to get myself through the rest, effort sporadically applied over the course of years. I did eventually make my way through the whole thing, but even now, I can’t necessarily be…
You are making a simple assertion that the metaphor was good without any explanation, while the author made a deep and cutting explanation as to why he he believes it’s a terrible metaphor. You’ve made no counter argument.
Maybe Hofstadter hadn't chosen the best metaphor, but criticizing it from the point that it contains too many irrelevant details isn't unlike dismissing the use of apples for teaching counting numbers (what happens if I bite an apple, what if an apple is larger than another one and so on).