Barthe and "Autobiography of Red"
             According to Barthes myth is a system of communication, it's a message. He believed that everything could be a myth. He thinks everything can go from a silent state to an oral one. Anything can be put into words and then turned into a myth. Since myth is a kind message. However, myth does not always have to be oral. It could be a work written, a photograph, a film and etc.
             Semiology is a scientific study of form, since it studies signification apart from content. Semiology is the relation between a signifier and a signified. A sign is a combination of the signifier and the signified. The signified is the concept whereas the signifier is the image. Moreover, the relation between concept and image is sign. However, a mythology is like a domino effect in terms of semiology, something that was a signifier becomes a signified.
             It seems as though Barthe has the intention to put every sentence of a myth into signifier and signified format. Nevertheless, I do not understand how that is possible. First of all some myths are too long. The other reason why that seems is absurd is because he's putting very short and grammatical sentences into signifier and signified. For example, he said, "my name is lion" in his article is a signifier and has a signified. He said that the signified was that "I am an animal, a lion, I live in a certain country, I have just been hunting, they would have me share my prey with a heifer, a cow, and a goat; but being the stronger I award myself all the shares for myself for various reasons, the last of which is quite simply "my name is lion"". I do not think that is a reasonable signified. You can't take a sentence as simple as "my name is lion" and claim it to be a story. The signifier "my name is lion" is as simple as it's going to get. Maybe it can signify something !
             ...