If we extend the definition of myth given by Roland Barthes (1989), then perhaps “epic” is also a type of speech – a certain “mode of signification” – whether the signifying is through words or any other semiotic material, it must appear to be grand, exalted and eternal. Even if the chosen signifier is plain and arbitrary, because of its connection to the signified, its value is heightened or it gets sanctified. Without the superlative degree in tone and in manner of speech, it would not successfully signify the epic. In the current study, regardless of the nature of discourse that readers construct about the text, there is one common denominator, and that is that the epic world is situated in the zone of distant past. However, this does not mean that the text is frozen in time and space; if anything, it blends with the immediate present and in this process of fusing, some old meanings are erased and new meanings that suit the contemporary needs are inserted and then located in that arbitrarily defined “distant past.”

The distinction between the epic and the novel is a critical one for Bakhtin, because certain inherent features in their own right characterize them.