The good choice is Deconstructionist.
Deconstruction is a critique of the relationship between the text and the meaning originated by Jacques Derrida. It is a form of literal and philosophical analysis and also known as the theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, truth, and identity.
Ovid creates suspense by slowly unfolding the events of the story. Rather than telling readers right away that Pyramus and Thisbe both die, he describes the tragic sequence of events in a particular order and in detail, making the reader wait to find out what happens.
The answer would be either magnifying clues or fleshing reactions.
(2 or 4)
There are some differences betwee summarizing and quoting. Summarizing: doesn't match the source word for word, presents a broad overview, so is usually much shorter than the original text, involves putting the main idea/ideas into your own words, but including only the main point, must be attributed to the original source. Quoting: match the source word for word, must be attributed to the original source, appear between quotation marks, are usually a brief segment of the text. So, as for me, summarizing is not really useful alternative to quoting.
