NewYorker, Macherey

From what I got out of this reading was not much. I kept thinking about the parallels between words/communucation/speaking, and writing. Silence in real life can actually communicate a lot. Giving someone the silent treatment reflects anger, and that you're not talking to that specific person because they wronged you in some way. Facial expressions are also silent and yet communicate a lot, as well as gestures such as a hand wave or a thumbs-up. But when it comes to writing, I never really thought about what isn't being said, or the writers's silence. Now that I think about it though, sometimes it is very hard to put into words what one is thinking - if that occurs, that thought will be left out of the writing, thus leaving the reader to fill in tbe blank/gap (if one is made). Also, in a piece of writing, if absolutely everything is said about that topic, and there is no "silence" then there is nothing to critique on because all the bases have been covered, and thus would not make a compelling piece of writing.
I was also somewhat confused about what Macherey was trying to say about being a critic, or critiquing someone's work. Is he limiting their questions to two? Or saying a bad critique only asks one? I feel to be a good critic, there should be many questions asked. And if a question stumps the writer, the writer should re-visit the piece and figure out the problem. I agree though when he noted that "the aim of criticism is to speak the truth," (15). Critics should dig to the bottom of things, whether it be a peice of writing, or a piece of artwork, or an advertisement.