Myth Form

Barthes discusses that the form of a myth is more important, to the message of a myth, than the content within the myth. 'Form, not content defines a myth', Barthes. I found this to be a very intriguing concept. The importance of form over content supports the notion that myths pertain to a specific audience. Barthes goes on to discuss the relationship between specific form and historical criticism. "The more a system is specifically defined in its forms, the more amenable it is to historical criticism."- Barthes. The more specific the form, the more suceptiable a myth is to historical criticism. However, a more specific form is advantageous to the message of a myth. Is Barthes suggesting that a myth should be cautious to avoid historical criticism? Or is historical criticism entirely negative for a myth? Myths that draw the attention of history must be powerful and bold yet appear to be innocent. They must be both a notificaton and a statment of fact. "Button holing that looks innocent." HIstorical criticism often increases the awareness of a myth and in a way perpuates the myth.