"Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking." (17)
--Pierre Macherey
Well, if thats the case, I wish he would stop talking so that I could understand what it is that he is saying (or not saying). Since it is virtually impossible to say everything in a work, there leaves room for further question and speculation. What the author decides is important to reveal is "the act of literary production" (18). What the author does not decide to be important textually, what is omitted, the silence and implications of the work are linked to what the author is really saying.
Macherey asks whether if something has hidden itself it can be recalled to our presence. Given the nature of an implied statement I would have to say that it could. Experience is what creates meaning. If something were to trigger a thought, even though it is not explicitly stated, the reader has the ability to recall it, thereby creating an interpretation that may or may not be received by all who read the work. This silence creates the unavoidable dilemma that all works across any medium face. Since it is impossible "to ask of every production what it tacitly implies, what it does not say" (17) we can not know the true nature of the creators intent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
KAYMAC MACHEREY
"Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking." (17)
--Pierre Macherey
I definitely agree with this, especially with what Dr. Rog was saying in last Tuesday's class too about how we know something by what it not is. This is kind of the same concept.
So take John Stewart for example. I remember hearing time and time again that after he would show a clip on a speech or a segment out of a press conference Stewart would just raise his eyebrow and that would say everything.
Of course in this sense I'm talking about literal silence. Stewart doesn't need to say anything to get his point across. However, what about figurative silence? I believe that is what Macherey was talking about.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it really fall? Nothing exists unless we acknowledge it exists, at least according to some theories. But what I believe Macherey is saying is that what we don't know exists really does exist and that is what makes our world go 'round. Is he talking about some outer force? God? Aliens? Santa Clause?
Or is he saying all that needs to be said has already been said and so what's the point of speaking anymore? Why don't we explore the things we haven't said because those are the things that hold true meaning. I mean, we haven't found true meaning life with the things that we have said, so logically, it has to be something that hasn't been said just yet.
I think I just confused myself.
To "Wouldn't" and "Kaymac": I think you are both onto something in your reading. I'd encourage you to push your ideas further. . .
Post a Comment