![]() ![]() Roland Barthes fails to clearly identify from the onset the specific differences in his two proposals. The latter could as well be interpreted to mean a medium of speech. The question that lingers at this moment is whether the myth qualifies to be a type of speech based on certain conditions or it is a form of speech on its own. The brevity of it is that myth is a message and its definition does not lie in the content it intends to convey but by the means with which it is conveyed. The article notes that it is imperative from the start to comprehend the myth as a way of communication. It is however, the way he tries to link the flow of factors that degenerate the myth into becoming a type of speech that raises certain questions. However, he states that speech must contain particular features to qualify as a myth. Barthes begins his analysis of the Myth by stating that in its simplistic form a myth is a type of speech. The article under review is adapted from Mythologies written by Roland Barthes and translated by Annette Lavers, Hill and Wang. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |