Macherey's piece A Theory of Literacy Production discusses the implicit and explicit, the untold and the told, the discrete and the blatant. He explains that "the speech stored in the book must be incomplete; because it has not said everything, there remains the possibility of saying something else, after another fashion" (15). In reality, it is true to believe that a book has not stated everything as that is a virtual impossibility. There will always be a question, there will always be something left unsaid.
Fortunately, Macherey believes that this silence is a good thing that forces us, the reader, to use our interpretations to further our understanding and knowledge. In essence, we are forced to be critics of the work, as the work is "self-sufficient."Macherey discribes that "when a critic speaks he is not repeating, reproduce or remaking it; neither is he illuminating its dark corners, filling its margins with annotation, specifying that which was never specific" (16). It is stressed that the critics job is not to "finish" or to "complete" the work, for the silence is necessary. He states conclusively that "we must distinguish the necessity of this silence. This silence gives it life" (16).
While this counters what I have always learned, the depth of silence can truely be remarkable. For example, poetry can be immensely strong and has always been about what is not spoken of. Actions clearly speak louder than words, but Macherey believes silence does as well.
1 comment:
Silence: Response to kkish
“I have always been taught to write as though the reader has no recollection or knowledge of what I am discussing, whether writing a academic argument of a short story. Leave no questions, no open spaces, no holes”
Just like anything I think there is a time and a place for silence. And I think that it is important in writing to provoke your audience to think and understand what is being said, and maybe more importantly what is not being said. But is silence different from the “unspoken.”
Macherey says, “Can we make this silence speak? What is the unspoken saying?” (17) At first I thought they were two things. But after rereading the paragraphs that followed, I started to understand. kkish’s post made things more clear as well. “There will always be a question, there will always be something left unsaid.” (kkish) But there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think that it is better. I have read books (not just textbooks) where my mind wanders because I am not required to think, or the concept is to far fetched to grasp. But not all who wander are lost. In books I can lose myself in a story. It is important for the author to know what they do not say, perhaps guiding the audience to imagine, debate, or fantasize about something the author does not want to implicitly state.
I think something to round out the argument of silence is what Macherey again stated, “Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that reveals is doing the speaking” (17). It is not always what you hear that you should know.
Take an election. Obama and McCain each chose what to say and what not to say in a speech. In ads, politicians usually attack their opponent with claims, which are usually not mentioned in the speech.
“Silence reveals speech” but the speech it reveals may be deceitful.
Post a Comment