Generalizations on reading and writing (Y1,4, pt. 1)

The passage reads as straightforward commentary yet is packed with contraries. It's evidence of Benjamin's ability to speak from a place of seemingly perfect contraries, contradictory meanings that take place simultaneously through and through. Does he "construct" that "phenomena" or is he reflecting an aspect of language itself, of history? One could argue that even that question is contained in the prose. Need I write about of how these contraries function or operate? Would that help us get to a better understanding? It would get to more of an illustration of how text is working in the Arcades Project, how Benjamin seems to be constructing meaning, what he means, what the text means. 

I would need to do 94 of these analyses to get through Convolute Y. What do I have time for? The biggest issue in Benjamin scholarship seems to be that the Arcades Project is not being read in detail. What would I have to offer, in what context? Certianly anything I have to say derives from uncovering certain tenets in the close readings, incontrovertible ways Benjamin seems to be handling certain themes, where when one emerges into the secondary literature a more nuanced sense of these themes seems to be absent. Can we take that as a value? The readings themselves might not resolve into a work, yet there seem to be points at which they enter conversationally into a network of things being said, and they do so with reason. So in some way those things being said are central to the work of close reading as a work. "From the start, to keep this thought in view and to weigh its constructive value." The necessasrily too diffuse, too formative hermeneutical readings that come through writing about that reading, that fill space and arrive unpredictably.