Its basic premise is that all knowledge comes directly or indirectly from some human perception. Nothing but divine revelation could go automatically from a text into the brain. It is a claim that one's own perception is somehow exempt from the imperfect, identity-driven processes of perception that are part of our limited human condition. Because one cannot teach interpretations, one teaches at most ways of interpreting. Students explore their own and others' ways of perceiving literary texts.
Criticism ceases to be the writing of final statements, because interpretation is never final.
In principle, this dialogue has no ending, no finality. Claims are always, as in science, provisional and contingent, depending on context, on the consensus of one's peers, and on unknowable future developments. Instead of proclaiming truths, critics need to engage in a continuing discussion in which each critic seeks to learn from and contribute to the readings by others. Such a criticism asks for a different way of writing. Because criticism is more tentative, more an individual view, the writing of criticism has to become more personal, more informal, often even autobiographical.