The Paradox of the Need for Privacy and the Need for Understanding

In the article, the author states “McCullers was only 21 when she wrote this book, but she was too mature to condemn abstractions either, although it is a rather abstract, paradoxical conflict that she is primarily concerned with…”(1). I may be reading too deeply into this but what right does the author have to say this statement? Aren’t the more mature more likely to condemn abstractions? Is it not the human condition to organize whatever we cannot clearly define? Isn’t it the human condition to fear what we do not know? Is it not the “more mature” that are more likely to follow these human conditions and the young to embrace the abstract because they are not yet fully conscious of society and the world around them? How can the author say that McCullers can write this book when she “was only 21” because she was “too mature to condemn abstractions” when I personally believe her age is exactly what allowed her to write this book, not because she was too mature, but rather because, like Mick, her life is not clearly defined, which as a result gives her the ability to write about this paradox she is beginning to realize she lives among? Which brings me to another point that I believe the author misinterprets… He states “The portrait of Mick is complete” when I believe although we have so far witnessed Mick’s life more thoroughly than the rest of the cast of characters she remains somewhat ambiguous to the reader. I’m not sure what makes me say this but that’s why I would like to put it up for discussion.
I know that was long and sort of confusing but basically I have questions on the way the author chooses to word his ideas and would like to see if there are those who disagree or agree with me. I’m not saying that I disagree with what he is saying, the very opposite actually, but I do not agree with the way he chooses to word some of his ideas.
SO first of all, do you believe that the author is right when he states that although she “was only 21 when she wrote this book, she was too mature to condemn abstractions either”? Why and why not? And do you also believe that the author is right to say that “The portrait of Mick is complete”? Although we have not fully read the text I believe that there is this mystery about her that leaves her portrait incomplete… HELP ME because I am thoroughly confusing myself. Thank youu :)