Although I disagree with some of Barthes' analytical choices and word choices, perhaps he would admit his own mythological process in their use. Personally, I choose to speak of semiotics more from Peirce than from Saussure and so the choice of semiotic structure remains difficult to use in its ideological development.

That said, there are some brilliantly well phrased portions of this book that speak prophetically to future academic literature and history. I will certainly need to take a few quotes from this one such as, "To rob a man of his language in the very name of language: this is the first step in all legal murders."

Barthes insists that either we are ultimately all poets, or we are historians, but it would seem to me that the "historians" are only ideological here by memetic use of Saussure and the fact that the story of semiotic history begins in prehistory, and thus must begin in its middle, but I think this denies mythologists and semioticians' the material existence of objects that Actor-Network Theory has justified can exist in symbolic process of our interests. With this objection aside, Barthes sings to me.

A set of very interesting, thought-provoking essays which transform your perception of the world around you. It is interesting to see how Barthes can analyse every ideological, social and personal construct through his semiotic lens. Overall, it was a very enlightening read and the essays are not too long, making a lucid transition in subject-matter between one essay and the next.

I skipped around some of the introductory essays, while not explicitly linked, picking out a few of the more itneresitng sounding ones was an interesting experience. The end essay on Myth today however felt like a great introduction to semiotics and the ideas of how Myth is used -- coincidentally enough, today. For that alone I give it 4 stars. Though I found it challenging at times its brevity allowed me to process the parts I picked without too much distress.

Barthes struck me as a bit smug, so that’s a bummer. He also used the word bourgeoisie so much I felt nauseated.

The first 2/3rds of the book are brilliant short essays on semiotics and how the bourgeois abuse signs to keep everyone else under a spell. I particularly liked the one about the margarine advertisement which highlighted a marketing trope we still see today (this was written in the 50s).

The last third of this SUCKED. I feel as though people read Barthes for his beautifully lyrical prose… not academic jargon. I don’t think I would have minded it as much if the last footnote didn’t explicitly say ‘I wrote in a dense style to prove a point’. I understand a fear of not wanting to write for the philistine, but I don’t really understand switching your style (which people like) for the sake of obfuscation.