Edmundson states that if he could make one wish for the members of his profession, college and university professors of literature, he would wish that for one year, two, three, or five, they would give up readings. By "a reading," he means the application of an analytical vocabulary to describe and (usually) to judge a work of literary art. Edmundson contends that kicking the "addiction" to readings would strengthen the profession, improve teaching, and increase the number of good books of literary criticism. He believes that transformation is the highest goal of literary education, but that does not mean that literary study cannot have other beneficial effects. It can help people to read more sensitively; help them learn to express themselves; it can teach them more about the world at large. But the proper business of teaching is change--for the teacher and for the student--and if this is a professor's goal, then readings will only get in the way. For example, when a teacher launches a Marxist reading of William Blake, he effectively uses Marx as a tool of analysis and judgment. If a professor thinks that Marx or Foucault or Kristeva provides a contribution to the best that has been thought and said, then by all means read and study the text. But the teacher who studies Foucault probably needs to ask what kind of life Foucault commends. Is it one outside of all institutions? Is it one that rebels against all authority? Can that life be in any way compatible with life as a professor or a student? These are questions that are rarely asked about those conceived of as the more radical thinkers of the era. Edmundson states that to be against readings is not to be against criticism, but this needs to occur once an author's vision is set forth in a comprehensive, clear, sympathetic manner. Criticism requires getting into skeptical dialogue with the text. Mounting a conventional academic reading--applying an alternative set of terms--means closing off the dialogue before it has a chance to begin.