Derrida's Plato's Pharmacy: Writing does not allow to transmit the truth

Derrida's Plato's Pharmacy is an essay that dialogues with one of Plato's dialogues (Phaedrus) about writing to show that speech has more value than writing. The French philosopher announces in the introduction of this essay that he will be discussing writing through a very close-reading analysis that he does of Phaedrus. From the very beginning, Derrida identifies writing with the term Pharmakon, which is a term that was used by Socrates in Plato's dialogue to referred to texts. This term allows Derrida to provide characteristics to writing that are not very possible, especially when these texts or pharmakon become (an) orphan/s, that is, a pharmakon abandoned by the father of logos, “the speaking subject,” looses its value. 

The author claims that “[w]ithout his father, he would be nothing, but in fact, writing”. Then he goes on to establish a system of opposites constituted by the following categories: good and bad. Of course, the father is placed under the first category, which he calls agathon. Throughout the essay the number of metaphors created to show the weakness of writing is amazing. Thoth is another of the metaphors to represent writing that becomes manifested in the following quote: “It is not in any reality foreign to the 'play of words' that Thoth also participates in plots, perfidious intrigues, conspiracies to usurp the throne” (434). In this scenario the author is claiming that writing is taking over the speech and usurping or replacing it which is presented as something bad. The substitution of the living matter (speech) for what is death (writing). (The essay becomes some type of dramatic play where the good and the bad are fighting against each other to win the throne. And lets remember that the good and the bad are also represented by the father and son relationship, which I think, it might allow for a Freudian reading...) 

Later we are presented with a son-death-writing with no identity and this is why it needs to imitate the father to be able to exist: It becomes an imitation of the father (!) but, at the same time, it becomes its antithesis. (I imagine like an evil clone of an individual). What at one point writing seemed to be a good thing to do (not in this essay, of course), the author is claiming the opposite. He says: “The pharmakon produces a play of appearances which enable it to pass for truth, etc” (437). Writing is external, productive of belief and pure appearance, to sum up, it's bad! (…) 

I think it would be interesting to see what truth means but even if this is an abstract term, the essay does not seem to suggest that the truth can be captured in writing. But I supposed by truth the author is referring to the actual meaning of the message conveyed and this is why it is so important to have the subject to explain it, and not a third person interpreting, which is what really happens with translations... and, maybe, this is also why the author also points out the issue with translating texts....Ok, this can go on.....