It's the association of philosophical ideas with the everyday that makes Mythologies so approachable and also so poignant. Barthes doesn't position his ideas up in the clouds but down on earth, showing how the method used to sell margarine, for example, can illuminate how the mind may be manipulated by social organs such as the army or the church; how the seemingly trivial language used to promote laundry detergent is actually a sophisticated series of symbols designed to elicit specific connotations.

These connotations can be contradictory, and Barthes is continually reminding us that contradictions are the stuff of life, that symbols and signs can be used to mean one thing in this context and another in that - or sometimes both at the same time, depending on the audience.

It is an absolute stroke of genius to start with 'The World of Wrestling.' It is humorous but also clearly shows the essence of semiotics. Taking such a familiar form and analysing the symbolic meaning of wrestling's gestures and actions is both amusing and thought provoking, enough to make even someone like me who disdains the sport consider what such popular entertainment can tell us more generally about the usage of signs and symbols. Perhaps I should watch Love Island with this perspective in mind?

Another book I didn’t manage to read until days before the essay was due. Thankfully I’ve cited it in many other papers since then. Barthes is forever intriguing

Dude made a bunch of good points, but after each one follows it immediately up his own ass. Also does the French philosopher thing (although I suppose I cant exclude the translator from suspicion) of taking a common normal, well understood word or phrase, and giving it a random meaning that only applies within that book, and when neologisms do appear, they do so with out explanation or definition.

I literally thought 'antiphysis' and 'psuedophysis' were maybe common terms I'd just never come across, and extensive googling basically only led me back to works by Roland Barthes. Sartre does this shit too (bad faith).

Anyway, between WWII and the colonies revolting, I can see why a normal French dickhead would be going insane, but as a guy who purports to stand outside all that, noticing the foibles of other people and how they arise from a socially constructed framework for interpreting reality, that again, he sees entire... Dude has an entire essay that takes for granted the number one foodstuff most commonly associated with France is beef steak. First off, no, literally no one on earth has thought that of the French. Second off, that is true, fairly or not of the English, France's number one rival throughout history, and the first thing anyone who didn't accept that statement at facevalue would think of. A slang term for the Brits in France is literally 'bifteck'. How this passed an editor (even a French one) without a request like 'could you elaborate, unpack this, maybe justify it *at all*?' I can't imagine.

It's kind of disorienting to see good points about capitalism included in articles where the guy talks about, for instance, kids being brainwashed into passively accepting their roles via toys - baby dolls for girls, toy guns for boys, easy bakes for girls, chemistry sets for boys, and 'Martian toys'. What the fuck is that? See above about Barthes never explaining anything. What the fuck role in 1960s French society (or some role in Future French society from 1960-2022) could a 'Martian toy' possibly prepare a child for, let alone insidiously brainwash them for capitalism purposes? Fuck you, he's not going to explain, but he is definitely going to revisit it a few times to make absolutely clear it wasn't a slip of the tongue or awkward translation, it's an actual fixation he has that he considers so normal as to not require a word of explanation.

You feel like seeing through capitalism's bullshit makes you a smart-clued in person, and then you meet some fucking moonman who also shares your priors and you have to accept that you too might also be an idiot who happens to be right about one thing, possibly by accident.

He's mentions in an essay about a drink made of vodka, grenadine and milk. This is a thing that tough guys supposedly drink in France in the 60s. If the dude had any credibility left after the steak thing, I might have to consider that this could possibly be true, and be disgusted at the idea for the rest of my life. Just cafes full of hard men from banliues, drinking hot pink cherry flavored milk. Would the alcohol or lactose make you puke first, if you went hard on them?

Niet alle essays zijn even relevant meer en hierdoor soms een tikkeltje saai om te lezen, maar de analyse van de mythische taal is scherp en interessant. Dit is was ik eerder had verwacht van Erich Fromm, maar dan beter.