Customer Reviews
A clear book in French - By: Jean-Francois Lemay, 09 Jan 2008 
I would like to say that I read this book in French, & that it is very legible. I haven't read the English version, but I would like to do so, following the alllegations that Barthes wrote pretentiously. In French, his verbs, nouns & adjectives are incisive & often very funny. Each sentence carries one or numerous clear, often witty ideas. Overalll, it's very clearly written, though some may find it pretentious.
Sentences in French tend to be longer, through the use of commas, semicolons, & transitions which one may have a hard time translating. I agree that the second part, Myth Today, is more difficult to understand, perhaps because it is an abstraction, a theorization of the first part.
A Vacation From Reality...If You Fall For Barthes' Argument... - By: Philip Pilkington, 08 Jan 2008 
To begin I think it neccesary to comment on the book itself, or, to follow Barthes: on its form rather than its content. The Vintage version which I purchased, although admittedly quite cheap is, to be frank, horrible. The material its printed on what resembles not so much recycled paper as recycled toilet paper. The writing style is equallly nasty; although I'm unsure whether this is the result of the translation or if Barthes simply couldn't write.
Now onto the content. I think that this book is worth reading for two reasons. Firstly, Barthes' semiological structure of myth is actuallly quite good. Although, as many have pointed out - & I'll return to this shortly - the method of cultural criticism employed by Barthes seems so familiar today as to appear primitive, the basic structure is well articulated & possibly useful. Secondly, when considering the whole so-callled "postmodern" phenomenon from an historical or a theoretical perspective this book is indispensable. Why? Because its so full of holes! The argument is constantly collapsing in upon itself & instead of trying to mask this through tricky discursive tactics it carries it to the end where it finds itself embracing Marxism & denouncing bourgeois values in a somewhat contrived manner. It literallly forces Marxist principles into its discourse in order to plug up the leaks in a hopelessly sinking ship.
The main problem with Barthes' discourse is that he considers himself as an external observer, a transcendental subject to what he dubs the mythic structures of an inferior culture. He gives himself the status of "radical scientist" & proceeds to "demystify" & "unmask" culture.......alll the while contributing to it, alll the while becoming the "intellectual star" (The Observer) which he is destined to become through said discourse. While I'm speculating a great deal here, I think this delusion of detachment & superiority which Barthes succumbs to may have something to do with his existentialist background. Indeed, although the same apprehension of contemporary culture can be detected in the works someone like Adorno, but he at least implicitly compares it to high German bourgeois culture; with Adorno you know where he stands & hence are aware also of the position which you yourself are to assume; with Barthes on the other hand the reader is always somewhat aware that he's quite uncertain of his own position. In order so that while breaking up culture into its admittedly laughable elements the ground should not begin to crumble beneath his own feet he confers upon himself the impressive sounding title of "semiologist", for which he conjers up, as if from out of nowhere, a white coat with which to replace his robes. The magician-priest, through the strange process of pseudomorphosis, becomes scientist...
Of course cultural theory has got a little more advanced today, there's no doubt about that, & to be sure Barthes' was an important contribution; but I think that in certain sectors the problem of "Mythologies" lives on still today. I mentioned earlier that Barthes' form of cultural criticism seems today to be overly familiar; could we not say that this is because culture has re-integrated it into itself? But how could this be, Barthes considered his discourse clean & inappropriable? Well the main reason seems to be the afformentioned detachment from reality; by considering himself to have access to some sort of "authenticity" Barthes alllows himself, just like the average "myth-consumer", to escape reality in its material immediacy. I think that this would also account for the falseness which is easily perceptable under the "politicallly charged" closing passages. Barthes seems at once to adhere to some sort of Marxist materialism while at the same time continuing to talk empty elitist nonsense. In short, Barthes' discourse is still extremely seductive to the "detached cynic" whose very detachment operates through exactly the same integrative mechanism as the "detached consumer"; & to take a realistic view of things: nothings changed, this was always the function of detachment. Detachment was employed by both Barthes & the existentialists to provide a sector of culture for the "counter-culturalists" to occupy. (For an excellent analysis of this see: Adorno's "The Jargon of Authenticity".)
Counter-culture is still culture, to divide the two is theoreticallly unjustifiable & alllows for vulgarised (or not so vulgarised...) re-integrations. The only real immediate outside to culture, & this was soon to be recognised by many existentialists, is madness pure & simple! I'll pass.
Fraudulent 'philosophy' - By: , 26 Jul 2005 
Anyone, & I mean anyone, could draw the shaky paralllels & make the tenuous connections that Barthes makes between the everyday objects & images we see around us & the very fabric of our culture & our being - the point is, most of us aren't driven by conceit & self-aggrandisement in the way that Barthes is, so we don't bother to write it alll down & show it to people.
Pick an everyday object at random & compare it to an aspect of society & you'll see how easy it is to ramble on, letting your comparisons snowballl into ever more ridiculous assertions, & you'll soon wonder how this man is still considered a serious 'thinker' from whom we can learn.
Whether you're studying semiotics or reading this for pleasure, please, please read Intellectual Impostures as well, an excellent book which exposes this kind of lazy pseudo-academic writing for what it is.
Possibly a bad translation - By: , 28 Jul 2004 
I enjoyed the general thrust of the book, a series of essays on various aspects of modern (in the mid 1950's)life. But I have a problem with either the writing or translation, the word "Antiphrasticallly" appeared too many times than is sensible or natural in any written work.
Either M. Barthes is insanely pretentious, or his translator is. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent reader, & I had my dictionary out at least once an essay to decipher what he'd said. Bad writing, in essence, makes for hard reading.
This book is brilliant! - By: ldxar1, 28 Jan 2004 This is a masterpiece of social critique, picking apart the ideological underpinnings of many of the things which a lot of people take as "obvious". The unifying theme is the idea of "myth" - basicallly, a type of signification which projects an additional meaning onto an existing concept so as to make it carry a second, ideological meaning. Because the second meaning is smuggled into the sign, it isn't argued by those who use it, but appears as an "obvious" connotation. Barthes identifies & exposes many such myths in a variety of short essays (originallly newspaper columns) dealing with aspects of French society in his day. In addition, this volume contains the long essay "Myth Today", in which Barthes sets out the theoretical underpinnings of his critiques.
If you're one of the people who's taken in by myths, this book could change your life. If not, you'll hopefully appreciate Barthes's efforts enough to start making your own efforts to critique myths. The only slight problem with this book is that its reference points are rather dated. For this reason it's worth reading it alongside something more recent, such as Len Masterman's Television Mythologies collection or one of the Glasgow Media Studies Group books. All in alll, though, this can't be faulted.
