B.

LITERATURE REVIEW
1). Previous Finding
Nur Azizah U was made a research about the Myth in the novel The Mark of Athena by
Rich Riordan the research used Semiological Approach by Roland Barthes. The objectives of this
research are (1) to finds the kinds of myth in the novel The Mark of Athena by Rich Riordan,(2)
to find the connotation meaning of the myth in the novel The Mark of Athena according to
Barthes.

The method used in this research is qualitative method. The data of this research are taken
from Rich Riordan novel The Mark of Athena which is published in 2012. In collecting the data,
the researcher used note taking as instrument.

In this research the researcher found that there are three kinds of myths in the novel are;
rebith myths,eschatological myths, the tricksters myths. The connotation meaning of myth found
in the novel are; eternity judgement day and Braggart.
The implication of this research to give understanding about kinds of myths the readers or
to next researcher that interested learns about myths issues in the literary work.

2). Pertinent Ideas

Since the research Analyses Historical of Ouija: Good Bye movie therefore Mythologies
is used. The historical is the study of the past as it is described in written documents. Events
occurring before written record are considered prehistory. History can also refer to the academic
discipline which uses a narrative to examine analyseand a sequence of past events, objectively
determine the petterns of cause and effect that determine them. The study of literature within the
discipline of Historical, having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of
legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief. Based on reconstructed from an event,
custom style and mythological in the past.
Back to the thinking of Roland Barthes, The myth today is based on humans history and
myth cannot occur. At the same time, myth itself participates in the creation of an ideology, myth
doesnt seek to show or to hide the truth. So, it seek to deviate from the reality.
According to Roland Barthes, what Mythologies do is:
1. Myth is a type of speech

Myth is a type of speech, everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by a discourse.

Myth is not defined by the object of its message, but by the way in which it utters this
message: there are formal limits to myth, there are no 'substantial' ones. For myth is a type
of speech chosen by history: it cannot possibly evolve from the 'nature' of things. Speech
of this kind is a message. It is therefore by no means confined to oral speech. It can consist
of modes of writing or of representations; not only written discourse, but also
 photography, cinema, reporting, sport, shows, publicity, all these can serve as a support
to mythical speech.
2. Myth as a semiological system
Following from his section, he calls the concept of myth as semiological system developed
by Ferdinan de Saussere described the connections between an object (the signified) and
its linguistic representation (such as word, the signifier) and how the two are connected.
Working with this structure Barthes continues to show his idea of a myth as a further sign,
with its roots in language, but two which something has been added. So, with a word (or
other linguistic unit) the meaning (apprehended content) and the sound come together to
make a sign.
3. The form and the concept

The signifier of myth presents itself in an ambiguous way: it is at the same time meaning
And form, full on one side and empty on the other. When it becomes form, the meaning
leaves its contingency behind; it empties itself, it becomes impoverished, history
evaporates, only the letter
Remains. But the essential point in all this is that the form does not suppress the meaning,
it only impoverishes it, it puts it at a distance, it holds it at one's disposal. One believes that
the meaning is going to die, but it is a death with reprieve; the meaning loses its value, but
keeps its life, from which the form of the myth will draw its nourishment. The meaning
will be for the form like an instantaneous reserve of history, a tamed richness, which it is
possible to call and dismiss in a sort of rapid alternation: the form must constantly be able
to be rooted again in the meaning and to get there what nature it needs for its nutriment;
above all, it must be able to hide there. It is this constant game of hide-and-seek between
the meaning and the form which defines myth.