Yellowdaisy4, Macherey

I found this continued reading on structuralism to be more complex and difficult to understand than the first one. Macherey talked about inplicit and explicit which I believe have to do with what is unspoken and spoken by the author in a book. I found the concept of how silence shapes the speech of the book interesting because you wouldn't normally look for what isn't said over what is said in a book. However, after reading this I agree witht Macherey's point that "in order to say anything, there are things that must not be said." I find this and the fact that we "investigate the silence for it is the silence that is doing the speaking" true because when using criticism you must find what is missing and needs to be added and what is missing on purpose to add a certain aspect. An author can use "silence as a source of expression" by not saying it at all. An example of how silence is used as expression or doing the speaking is when someone gives you the silent treatment.That silence can be so powerful that even though you maybe don't want to deal with the problem eventually you rather be screamed at or beaten up then completely ignored. If just the silence lasts long enough between people, even without a fight that relationship is broken. Silence can really get your point of being angry or being sad across to someone sometimes more than outright telling them that you are upset.
What I did find hard to grasp was the part of the reading about the two questions. I'm not sure what he was getting at or how it related to inpicit, explicit and silence of books.