“The Eiffel Tower” displays Barthes at his best. Devoid of the abstruse language and neologisms which deal with his theoretical works, Barthes seems happy here when he talks about in divulging the multilayered meanings of a well-known landmark. He  describes and creates the imagination by being perceptive and his spontaneous insights.  He is also becomes unforgettable by his intellect and poetic ability, the image of this monument will always “be something other and something much more than the Eiffel Tower.” the text ties to show mythology of The Blue Guide, a which is a common travel guide in the France of Barthes’s time. Barthes talks about the guide for  the images of mountains and hills. He examines the materialistic and moral ideas found in those pictures and the  nature of the mountains,  of a hierarchical system in the hilly terrain, and the connection between the clean air of the mountains and the moral cleanliness required by Christianity. Barthes also talks about the lack of plains and plateaus pictured in the guide as representing the lack of images familiar to laymen. He then analyzes the presence of religious sites in the guide, mostly in the in the guide. Barthes also brings up the general lack of the pictures of people, and the stereotypes found where people pictures are present. The people serve more as accessories to the scenes, rather than the focus of the images.

Lastly, Barthes also analyzes the presence of material historical sites, but not the descriptions of the historical periods themselves. The materialistic wealth of the country, such as buildings, statues, and museums, becomes more important than the social history or cultural  of a place . Barthes also shows the differences between regular and mythical speech. In mythical speech, he claims, the original sign becomes swallowed in a bigger semiotic system, he calls “second-order semiological system” (81).  Myth reduces the material of the first level of this system to a signifier for the second level. The system of the original sign becomes zoned out by a larger system of mythical speech.  Barthes then in a way becomes a semiologist, when he goes into that the myth should not concern herself with the details of the original “language object,” but only with its overall meaning to the formation of the larger system of the myth. “Language object,” Barthes clearly sates that can refer either to words or to images because they serve the same signifying function in the semiological system.

There is a theory that claims that if texting came before the telephone, everybody would be amazed at the fact that we could actually talk to one another; I believe Ian Bogost would agree.

In Bogost’s article, “Don’t Hate the Phone Call, Hate the Phone”, he argues that millennials have developed such a hatred for phone calls that it has become a phobia, or “telephoniphobia”, to be exact. Bogost states, “when even initiating phone calls is a problem—and even innocuous ones, like phoning the local Thai place to order takeout—then anxiety rather than habit may be to blame…” Today, there is not only a dread that comes with making phone calls, but an anxiety. Bogost says this is because of social media’s ability to allow one to “intricately craft every exchange” which makes simple, live conversation seem like a burden. Another reason that factors into this phobia of the telephone is the fact that cellular networks may be to blame for their unreliability. Bogost suggests that their “unpredictability” is what leads individuals to veer from making phone calls.

Personally, I do not think this is the case. The telephone clearly is a monumental invention that has impacted us greatly, but since its introduction, there have been countless advancements with the telephone. Telephones today, or cellphones rather, have much greater uses that go beyond a simple phone call. With social media on the rise and other advantageous developments, like ordering food online, editing photos, or applying to jobs, the telephone has been altered and changed drastically. Today, a simple text may suffice for many opposed to a phone call that may seem rather time consuming, and that is perfectly fine. I do, however, believe that newer generations that are exposed to the accessibility of cellphones and the dependence on social media can lead to a kind of “phobia” when it comes to phone calls. Many individuals, even some that I have encountered, shy away from something as simple as ordering a pizza over the phone, as they don’t feel comfortable speaking.

Another problem that Bogost brings up is that telephones have shifted from private to public. Bogost states that, “the mobile phone in general and the smartphone in particular are designed to be carried first, and spoken into second”. The issue that he brings to light here is that the environment in which the telephone is used has been altered, which then alters the use, and the necessity, of the telephone in general. He mentions that phones were only placed in closed off environments, such as a bedroom, a kitchen, or an office. He says, “in these circumstances, telephony became a private affair cut off from the rest of the environment”. He compares this to telephones in public as well, which also had some sort of booth or walls to confine. Essentially, there was a level of privacy where noise could not interfere and the sound could remain intact. Today, however, is the complete opposite. Bogost argues that phones are carried everywhere, which means that whenever they are used it will most likely be an environment where the sound will be compromised. Whether it may be city streets or coffee shops, the sound frequency combined with signal loss from poor wireless signals takes away from the telephone experience entirely. Bogost states that, “not only are phone calls unstable, but even when they connect and stay connected in a technical sense, you still can’t hear well enough to feel connected in a social one”. Ultimately, mobile phones take away from the reliability that telephony once possessed. Bogost is convinced that the design of mobile phones in this modern day has only fed to the unreliability and the awkwardness of telephony. Perhaps he is right, but it is not surprising that advancements such as these have led to such a change in the basic concept that was once the telephone.

The article Egg McNothin’ by Ian Bogust explains that the international fast food chain McDonald’s now offers breakfast all day. In this article Bogust argues that making the Egg McMuffin available all day will makes it lose its anticipation and lowers its value.  Bogust starts his article with a very important point. He says “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have—or at least, the one we cannot have very often.” All Day Breakfast made the Egg McMuffin lose its spark. Since it is available all day there is no more anticipation that makes us crave the McMuffin anymore. Bogust gives Thanksgiving turkey and dressing as an example. Thanksgiving was a great example because Thanksgiving only happens once a year. So you have to wait all year to gather around with your family to eat savory Thanksgiving turkey and other delicacies. If Thanksgiving was everyday it wouldn’t have the same effect on us as it does now. It wouldn’t bring any excitement or joy anymore because we didn’t have to wait for it. Thanksgiving would just be a regular day. It’s the same with the Egg McMuffin. Now that breakfast is available all day at McDonald’s there isn’t anything really special about the Egg McMuffin anymore or any other item on the breakfast menu for that matter. The greatness and specialty about McDonald’s breakfast is now lost. Before, if you couldn’t make it to breakfast in time you had to wait until the next day. That would lead to building anticipation and make you appreciate that product even more.

Bogust goes on to suggests that the Egg McMuffin was an idea rather than a reality. Most people were unable to make it to McDonald’s for breakfast so the Egg McMuffin quickly became a fantasy. In my opinion, I think the Egg McMuffin is pretty gross. Bogust suggest that even though the Egg McMuffin isn’t that great it was anticipation and limited access that made the Egg McMuffin a breakfast item that was heavily desired.  Waiting and limited access to items gives them much more value than having the ability to get it at any time. Now, we have gotten so used to having 24/7 access to things that it has now become the norm. Bogust continues and says:

“But far from initiating nihilistic despair, this moment invokes an invitation to rise above it. No hash browns, but perhaps fries. No McMuffin, but a cheeseburger is good enough. It’s good enough! The world restores its gentle sufficiency. The man who just-misses McDonald’s breakfast is a commoner’s Samuel Beckett, trudging ever forward despite the intrinsic absurdity of a 10:30a.m. breakfast cutoff. I can’t go on, I’ll go on.”

Bogust makes an important point with this quote. Even though you may miss out on a few things that doesn’t exactly mean that it is the end. Take another route and carry on with life. It may start off with an Egg McMuffin but, the idea of carrying on in life will take you very far. Bogust finishes his article with this “Anticipation was and remains a luxury—perhaps the greatest luxury. The surest way to spoil an extravagance is to destroy the suspense that animates it.”As Americans we are losing the meaning of anticipation. Do we even still know how to go after and chase what we want?  The society will change into a society that provides no anticipation and we will be always be stuck with an Egg McNothin’.

In response to the typically thin-skinned millennials (yes, you ones who ruin everything), I thought I’d share the proper way to talk using cellular technology, from fellow GenXer Lenny Kravitz:

Ferdinand de Saussure was a highly skilled linguist who spent his life trying to master something, which is impossible to master…language.

We all think we know what language is, however Saussure attempts to plunges his bare hands right into the pure essence of language. After acquiring his own understanding of what he grasped with his hands, he comes to a conclusion that he must explain this to everyone. What he does is a most excellent way of explanation. He first address a negation and then he brings about affirmation.

First, he says, “Some people regard language, when reduced to its elements, as a naming-process only – a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names.” (Saussure 852). He addresses a conception that the general people have about what language really is. However, almost right after that, he explains the criticisms of this approach and says that this approach is “rather naive” (Saussure 852). In doing this, he has brought about complete negation of the common conception and strips it naked, exposing its misconception.

After wiping the dark slate clean of its ignorance, he enlightens us with affirmation of the truth. He says, “The linguistic sign unites, not a thing and a name, but a concept and a sound-image.” (Saussure 852). The eternal meaning of language is first having a sound image in our thoughts and then turning it into a concept. If we didn’t have an image, then there is no thought and we are unable to think, thus unable to come up with a concept. Vice versa, there can never exist a concept that does not have a sound image because for there to exist a concept, there had to have first exited a sound image.  It is with this, that Saussure says, “The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other.” (Saussure 853). Sound image and concept are, in my eyes, two eternal dancers, whose eyes are infinitely and eagerly locked with each other, as they dance forever, inseparable.

It is with the beauty of Saussure’s method of approach that the reader is able to properly understand what language really is. The poetic method of negation followed by affirmation makes it easy for us to accept Saussure’s ideology.

Saussure then gives these two lovers new names for each. A set of names that only strengthens their bond. He names the sound image, signified, and concept, signifier. Together, he names the couple, sign.

Because of this beautiful link that this married couple shares with each other, Saussure explains that, “Language can also be compared with a sheet of paper: thought is the front and the sound the back; one cannot cut the front without cutting the back at the same time; likewise in language, one can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound” (Saussure 857). Sign is one entity that moves in unison and that feels in unison. What benefits one, benefits the other and what harms one, harms the other. If a new thing was discovered, whether it be an organism, an object, or an alternative meaning, then sign takes benefit. This is because with this new thing, there has to now be a new signified and signifier that is implicitly attached to it. This is an example of how they both acquire simultaneous benefit. Other the other hand if a mind threatens the existence of an already existing signified or signifier, than the existence of the other is immediately threatened as well. In this way, what affects one, always and immediately affects the other. Two sides of the same paper, of the same coin, of the same sign.

At the end of the day, when these two halves, signified and signifier, come together, they produce a most interesting offspring and that offspring is none other than variety. To explain, I’ll quote Saussure when he says, “…in language there are only differences.” and “A linguistic system is a series of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas” (Saussure 862). My interpretation of this is that signified gets a choice of what it wants to be. At any point in time it can change its decision and decide to become something else. This in turn affects signifier because now it needs to match with its other half so that the sign makes sense. This creates countless upon countless combinations of difference choices that one can take and that the other can respond and follow up upon. Sign needs to make sense in order to be recognized as being in a transcendental state of perfect unity. The vast amount of difference choice that each have due to each others’ will, is the reason why there is so much variety and potential in language. So much metaphor, so much romance, so much thunderous and phantasmagorical meaning behind difference uses of language. It is due to this existence of variety, infinite variety, in understanding, use and application that this skill of language, will never be mastered by any living soul, not even a notably, highly skillful one, such as Ferdinand de Saussure.

When something is present to the world as a symbol of power, it is given different variations by different people. The Eiffel Tower is one of the most significant examples of this power, particularly because of its apparent uselessness. As Barthes puts it: “This pure – virtually empty- sign- is ineluctable, because it means everything”  I took this to mean because of this apparent uselessness people are able to assign its use or rather its meaning and importance, therefore allowing everyone to think differently of this single symbol and expand on its importance individually. When things, specifically in this text the Eiffel Tower, are assigned such meaning by humanity the things become infinite aside from something that is “finite and fixed” never changing or evolving. Specifically the Eiffel Tower is infinite because it is known and viewed by many in many different ways and is therefore never fixed.

One of the main points of this reading, I think, is to understand that the tower itself is empty, there is nothing to see inside and no real use for it, but when one travels to the top it creates a whole other reality for that individual. An aspect Barthes focuses on is the fact that the tower is one of the tallest architectural creations in Paris so wherever you go in Paris you are able to see it. However when you enter the tower you are able to see everything but the tower. It brings new views and aspects to the individual and this feeling of a “birds eye view” which allows people to see the structure of the city from above. I appreciated the idea that this birds eye view added a sort of romantic aspect to the urban jungle that industrialism created. It turns the city into its own sort of nature and therefore creates a sort of understanding within the individual. Barthes says that this birds eye view “… gives us the world to read and not only to perceive” meaning that the understanding that this view creates is both within the individual as well as because of the towers ability to make the unintelligible understandable.

Barthes goes through the layers and “duality” as one of my classmates put it that the tower represents. He sheds light on the meaning of this specific monument to people as well as elaborates on the meaning behind “useless” yet important things. This idea of seeing things as “structures” from the top of the Eiffel Tower really shows a breakdown of the understanding that people have of the world from the ground and how different views and vantage points. Looking at the Eiffel Tower in such a close way shows how it means everything for the sole reason that it means no one thing, which can be said about a lot. What I got from this reading in particular is the way people view things can change from where they’re viewing it as well as just being different to different people, which is an important thing to understand.

I found both the article “The Eiffel Tower” by Roland Barthes and “Egg McNothin'” by Ian Bogost to be fascinating as both article seems to interconnect at a certain point. In the “The Eiffel Tower”, Barthes wrote, “the Tower is there; incorporated into daily life until you can no longer grant it any specific attribute, determined merely to persist, like a rock or the river…”(Barthes, 3). The tower seen by Parisians becomes nothing to them because they see it everyday. It is nothing special as it is not a luxury. Like Bogost said, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have – or at least, the one we cannot have very often.”(Barthes, 1). When tourists come to Paris, they want to see the Eiffel Tower because it is a sight they never see before, therefore they look at it as a luxurious object.

Furthermore, both Hugo and Michelet’s bird’s – eye view contributed to making the Eiffel Tower a landmark therefore attracting people who never saw it come to Paris and look at it.(Barthes, 11). It becomes a rite and will feel like something is amiss if you don’t visit the Eiffel Tower. This can relate to looking at a panorama. As we look at a panorama, we try to look for things we are familiar with, but as we see something different or something missing, we try to decipher it.(Barthes, 10). We don’t want difference to what we know, but have familiarity to our history.

In the article “The Eiffel Tower”, Barthes writes about how the tower is useless and that humanity made the tower natural by Hugo and Michelet’s bird’s – eye view.(Barthes, 8). Before the bird’s – eye view, Gustave Eiffel, would say the tower is not completely useless as it can server future purposes such as aerodynamic measurements and studies of the resistance of substances, but Barthes believes that this is nothing but excuses.(Barhtes, 6). Barthes believe this is nothing more than a dream created by Gustave’s imagination where he wants to satisfy  a great function.

The tower can further seen as useless because as tourists come and look at the tower, they will get confused as to what they are suppose to do. They can look at the tower from the outside and marvel at the architecture, but there is nothing inside the tower.(Barthes, 7). There is nothing particularly special about the Eiffel Tower. It is just a hunk of metal in Paris made special by Romanticism. Without Romanticism, the Eiffel Tower can be seen as useless. Only a tower that scrapes the sky. It is basically what Ian Bogost says. “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have – or at least, the one we cannot have very often.”(Bogost, 1). The tower becomes luxurious due to its Romanticism and anyone who hasn’t seen it wants to see what the big deal is. Without the Romanticism, it would just be another tower that anyone can see as just a tower. This is related to McDonald’s breakfast menu. The breakfast menu is served during a certain time making it special. A person have to come at a certain time interval just to have an Egg McMuffin therefore making it luxurious. Without the time interval, the breakfast menu will slowly lose its value as special. It becomes ordinary as anyone can buy it and eat it at any time. What was luxurious will become ordinary as there is no special meaning behind the object.

Ian Bogost makes what appears to be a simple argument surrounding something as mundane as the Egg McMuffin. However, I believe he is ultimately pointing out a flaw in human beings and not so much a flaw in McDonald’s marketing decisions. Bogost points out that by introducing All Day Breakfast, McDonald’s sells went down because there was no longer the anticipation and limitation that came with serving breakfast until 10:30am. It was this limitation that caused people to rush to McDonald’s before breakfast was over. As in it was the fear of missing out that drove people. It was the anticipation of getting there before 10:30am and the anticipation that came with having to wait until tomorrow morning if you did not get there in time that drove people to want to get there on time. In other words, Bogost argues that it was the feeling of anticipation, need for something limited and actual limitation that made people want the breakfast sandwich and not the actual sandwich itself.

Bogost also states, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have-or at least, the one we cannot have often.” In McDonald’s case, the excitement for the breakfast food was lost by making the breakfast food available all day. Ironically, human beings do not find something that is easily handed to them or always available exciting anymore. By pointing this out, Bogost presents the Egg McMuffin as an idea rather than a reality. He states that the Egg McMuffin symbolized “an indulgence meant mostly to be missed rather than savored.” In doing so, he is pointing out human beings’ flaw of wanting something they cannot have. In this case, once humans have something always available they don’t want it anymore or don’t want it as much as something that is limited or something they can’t have. It is this basic human flaw that McDonald’s failed to keep in mind when making the decision to make All Day Breakfast. By removing the exclusivity of breakfast, it removed the interest of many. I think the human flaw that Bogost points out is important because it seems so simple yet it can have huge impacts in financial marketing strategies. In other words, keeping in mind human flaws can help a huge corporation like McDonald’s make better marketing decisions in the future. In addition, it shows that human beings have to keep in mind whether they really want something for what it is or whether they want just the idea of it.

Ian Bogost’s Egg Mc Nothin was an interesting read to say the least. As a person who really does not like McDonald’s I could not understand all the hype about All Day Breakfast. Bogost interpretation is that making something as iconic as the Egg McMuffin all day devalues it and people do not feel as antsy to rush and buy it before 10:30 am hits.

In this article Bogost two main points that he would like the reader to understand. First, that the McMuffin could easily be linked with something of luxury value. In the beginning of the article he stated, “The greatest luxury is the one we cannot have—or at least, the one we cannot have very often.” He proceeds by saying that that’s what luxury is something we long for and if we end up getting it, it would not be on a daily basis. It is true that one must long or have a craving for something beforehand in order to get it. I do not think that Bogost is making the argument that any food from McDonald’s is luxurious but that the wanting of something that is limited makes it as luxurious as jewels for instance.

When Bogost makes the point that about McDonald’s breakfast ending at 10:30 and people rushing to the drive thru at 10:25 to get it before it’s availability has ended is important as well. He shows us that nothing in life is always available. It made me think about the times when I want a certain fruit and I’m told by the person in the supermarket that it is out of season. When anything is limited in it’s availability it is wanted more. Bogost is also trying to state that McDonald’s by making breakfast all day made people’s want for breakfast less. If you can get Breakfast at anytime what’s the rush to get it in the morning.

The biggest thing that he wraps up the article with is that the Anticipation for something will always remain a luxury. The only way to keep people wanting more is to make them antsy and make them want something and not give it away all the time. He also makes the reader believe that nothing in this world is always available so take advantage of it when you can.

Bogost writes about how having breakfast at McDonald’s loses it’s charm when the anticipation for the Egg McMuffin is sacrificed for the convenience of all day breakfast menus. He argues that it was the feeling of needing, rather than food, was what was driving people to get the breakfast sandwich.

There is merit to the argument in other ways as well. The values of people come from the excitement or anticipation of release. One can find this in a somewhat new trend of sneaker collectors, where people buy shoes at extravagant prices solely on the feeling of needing. Whether it is the need to look good, the need to impress others, or the need to expand their collection, it is need that drive the people. This need is taken advantage of by sneaker companies, by limiting stock and increasing prices, which in turn drive those needs in a frenzy.

McDonald’s, on the other hand, is completely accessible. The prices are low, the stores are everywhere, and many of them run 24/7. It is a food that is there only when one feels like having something cheap and quick. The excitement for food is lost and the all-day breakfast is the last nail on the coffin.

The issue at hand doesn’t seem to be the loss of the anticipation of this breakfast item. What writer in the right mind would write about something as trivial as the loss of a time for breakfast in a restaurant? Convenience is and will always be the leading driver of the McDonald’s corporation. The addition of the 24/7 breakfast is just another movement to appeal to the general audience of the brand. The issue the author may be trying to suggest is the societal shift from necessity of food to the necessity of self. The self is an aspect of building a world that each person is the center of. The convenience of the internet and the Silicon Valley style of simplifying every aspect of life creates a feeling of complacency towards most necessities. If a person is bored, they have all the entertainment at hand. If a person is hungry, they have delivery options at their fingertips. Life isn’t exciting when everything is taken care of. The author is making an example of McDonald’s showing that it’s not what people want anymore. The food seems like an unhealthy staple food in comparison to other options from a multitude of cultures and styles. The diversity and extravagance of many other options make the McDonald’s seem small.