July-->Pierrre Macherey

In the reading “From a Theory of Literacy Production” it elaborates on the hidden messages discourse can create. I am a strong believer in discourse not being “simple” nor “innocent”, simple because encoders can see text in numerous of ways, innocent because the sender has a purpose and messaging is involved. It is not up to the authors to predict what their audience might conclude from their readings, but it is the author’s main focus to get their point across. One’s language tends to cause a major problem when interpreting discourse because of the different meanings and thoughts about one subject that will arise. For example, this text rambles on and on about how one fills in the missing pieces of different readings, but the confusing part of this discourse is the comparisons between different expressions like, “Explicit is to implicit as explication is to implication: these oppositions derive from the distinction between the manifest and the latent, the discovered and the concealed.” Instead of elaborating with full details the author continues on with his argument, which leads an encoder or decoder to fill in the gaps left behind from the author.

The quote “…What the work cannot say is important, because there the elaboration of the utterance is acted out, in sort of a journey to silence” is kind of unique to me because it can go both ways. First, it implies that the ideas convey into one’s mind are superior because it leads them to generate multiple meaning or polysemy. Second, it can also suggest that silence about a reading is an okay thing, in reality it’s not because one needs know the underlying messages that an author may inscribe. For example, if I had a reading due for one of my classes I would not sit in class and not ask questions because eventually a quiz or a test will be given over the that particular text. When analyzing theoretical books I think it is imperative to become familiar with its significance.