000ooo000ooo, Macherey

"... if the author dos not always say what he states, he does not necessarily state what he says." (pg. 19)

For some reason linguists love using phrases like this that bend your mind inside out, daring you to make sense of them. I've always thought this was strange; if language is your profession, you should be really good at making yourself understood, not confusing people. In any case, I guess this is just the way it is.
Regardless of the confusion caused by this phrase, it still struck me as profound and very summarizing of this idea as a whole: that the words we literally speak or use do not convey the whole message we wish to get across. The difference between "saying" and "stating" is minute and I'm not sure I understand which is which, luckily I think they can be used interchangeably. One of them - I'll just choose say - is what we literally say and the words we literally use to describe something. The other - to state - is the message that this sends to people. They are not the same. For example, if I say "I threw a ball and my dog didn't chase it", then what I am literally saying is that at some point in time I threw a ball and for some reason my dog did not chase it. Very simple. However, the message of this statement can change depending on the context and for this reason it is critical to ask questions. What I have left out can say just as much as what I did say. As Macherey explains, a work is not fully contained within itself - if a dog doesn't chase a ball there must be more to the story and the only way to know the whole story - or at least a greater part of it - is to identify the silences and ask questions.
This saying can make a number of statements. For example, if I have one of those stupid little dogs from Park Avenue that wear sweaters, and I tell you that my dog didn't chase a ball, this saying would become more of a statement on how lame my dog is and how separated it has become from its animal instincts. If my dog is getting old and I say that, it is probably a statement about the worsening condition of my dog. However, there is always more to know as well. For example, did my dog ever chase balls? If not, there is really no significance to the fact that he doesn't want to chase them now. People could interpret this question a number of different ways and the questions they ask will reflect this.
This is a very elementary example but one that I hope displays what Macherey is talking about at least on a basic level - that there is always more to a text than what we see and the no text can ever be "complete". There is always something that is not stated or that can be asked. For a text to be complete it would have to embody nearly everything in the world because everything is connected and related in one way or another. Given this, the message the is put forth by the words we use may not coincide with the actual words we use, it is all a matter of the reader's perspective and former knowledge. This must be acknowledged in a text or the text risks being misinterpreted - much like the Chevy Nova.