“The Eiffel Tower” displays Barthes at his best. Devoid of the abstruse language and neologisms which deal with his theoretical works, Barthes seems happy here when he talks about in divulging the multilayered meanings of a well-known landmark. He  describes and creates the imagination by being perceptive and his spontaneous insights.  He is also becomes unforgettable by his intellect and poetic ability, the image of this monument will always “be something other and something much more than the Eiffel Tower.” the text ties to show mythology of The Blue Guide, a which is a common travel guide in the France of Barthes’s time. Barthes talks about the guide for  the images of mountains and hills. He examines the materialistic and moral ideas found in those pictures and the  nature of the mountains,  of a hierarchical system in the hilly terrain, and the connection between the clean air of the mountains and the moral cleanliness required by Christianity. Barthes also talks about the lack of plains and plateaus pictured in the guide as representing the lack of images familiar to laymen. He then analyzes the presence of religious sites in the guide, mostly in the in the guide. Barthes also brings up the general lack of the pictures of people, and the stereotypes found where people pictures are present. The people serve more as accessories to the scenes, rather than the focus of the images.

Lastly, Barthes also analyzes the presence of material historical sites, but not the descriptions of the historical periods themselves. The materialistic wealth of the country, such as buildings, statues, and museums, becomes more important than the social history or cultural  of a place . Barthes also shows the differences between regular and mythical speech. In mythical speech, he claims, the original sign becomes swallowed in a bigger semiotic system, he calls “second-order semiological system” (81).  Myth reduces the material of the first level of this system to a signifier for the second level. The system of the original sign becomes zoned out by a larger system of mythical speech.  Barthes then in a way becomes a semiologist, when he goes into that the myth should not concern herself with the details of the original “language object,” but only with its overall meaning to the formation of the larger system of the myth. “Language object,” Barthes clearly sates that can refer either to words or to images because they serve the same signifying function in the semiological system.