It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others
What is "peculiar" about Du Bois's mode of perception? How does his "double consciousness" compare to Emerson's experience of the "bare earth" in "Nature"? Why doesn't Du Bois just head out for the "perfect sweetness of solitude"?
WhenawomanisagueststaronStarTrek,nineoutofteniimesthereissomethingwrongwithher
... and often that something has to be solved by Kirk's loving or slapping some sense into her.
eavilyuponthetypesofinterpretivestrategiesmorecommontothefemininethantothemasculine.
Is this real, though?
Inthisessay,Iproposeanalternativeapproachtofanexperience,onethatperceives“Trekkers”(astheyprefertobecalled)notasculturaldupes,socialmisfits,ormindlessconsumersbutratheras,indeCerteau’sterm,“poachers”oftextualmeanings.
the main point.
make the visible the invisible, so that there [was] no danger of it creeping up on us unawares’
filiation
the fact of being or of being designated the child of a particular parent or parents. or the manner in which a thing is related to another from which it is derived or descended in some respect.
dilatory
this is defined as being slow to act
polysemy
The coexistence of multiple meanings to a word or phrase.
playing the Text as one plays a game, he searches for a practice that will re-produce the Text
A work whose integrally symbolic nature one conceives, perceives, and receives is a text.
What happens if you can't perceive the the symbolic nature? What is it then?
The difference is as follows: the work is concrete, occupying a portion of book-space (in a library, for example); the Text, on the other hand, is a methodological field.
How does a work then transition into a text?
scriptor's,
an interesting way to say author?
is not public opinion--constitutive of our democratic societies and powerfully aided by mass communication--defined by its limits, its energy of exclusion, its censorship?
Defining something by what it isn't? This part reminds me of Saussure, because I think he said something about being able to create distinctions between different words by knowing what they aren't, or rather that it creates meaning? So we know how a text works or how to classify not by its own characteristics but what limits it?
it cannot be apprehended as part of a hierarchy or even a simple division of genres
So it's not just like "Texts = good, Works = bad"
Marxism, Freudianism
Marxism and Freudianism seem to Barthes' opponents here (or at least he's distancing himself from them).
phenomenal existence
actual existence as a phenomenon