Myths are Based in Fact

One will note I stated 'in fact' not 'on fact'. 

On fact implies topicality in my view.  "It's just on the surface" vs "it's in the deep".

More often than not, it appears to me in text based online contact, people do not observe the specificity of a statement.  Perhaps it is simply a linguistic advantage of a naturally spoken language (one you spoke originally, or think in), but I quite enjoy the subtlety of conveyance within my native language of english.

I find that when debating with, for instance, Russians (one in particular, you know who you are) that the meaning within my statements are lost.  I am fond of the old saying that "Russian and French are for lyricism, English and German are for specificity".

Not that I speak Russian or English.  This is vague semblance of a premise that thanks to the subtlety of English, allows me to make light of the generalization without necissarily believing it an absolute.

This inherent flexibility of meaning could be considered an informal fallacy; a misrepresentation of definition, but alas I would have to part with my beloved sarcasm.  Let alone would it emasculate humor.  Even in the last sentence I chose 'emasculate' instead of 'defeminize' soley on Christopher Hitchen's argument that humor is a byproduct of male evolutional mating (that is not to say anything of the hubris of that assumption).

To return to point, mythos is constructed between the words used to explain an event and the actuality of the event itself.  In part, imagination used in text interpretation allows for a greater flexibility. 

Where with spoken language, there is a large sum of information transfered through body language, tone, pitch, speed and the like, with text these subtleties are left to the mind to reconstruct.

Rarely is a story considered poor in its execution because it does not align with what was expected.  It fails in execution through syntax and form, in not being comprehensible.

I can think of many examples in the medium of videos or movies that do not align well to what my mind imagined in reading the page. 

What does this tell us of the medium of text versus the medium of video (we will leave music out for the time being)?

If I were to communicate my internal thoughts and feelings, what medium of the two would best represent those ideas and why?

Literature has been long hailed as greatest medium for such.  I believe the reason is the inherent flexibility and adaption the reading process compels of the reader.  The movie watcher is a bystander to the imaginative musings of the director and producer.  The reader recalls books as though they had been experienced by one's self.

This fundamental difference in medium type leaves one with a valuable insight into the fact within myth.

Myths originate and are conveyed through the absence of certain things.  Those absences allow the person experiencing the myth to 'fill in' and 'imagine', and in other respects role play for themselves the experience of the characters of that myth.  One will also note, that the movies and videos that have had the greatest impact on culture as a form of myth, are those that leave the absence within the medium.

I am not naive enough to assume that video transmission of stories are somehow less than those of reading.  I am inclined to believe however, that the fundamental 'absence' found within spoken, written, and visual language are the fundamental elements defining the difference of a story and a myth.

Facts are 'the story'.
Myth is the 'absence of absolutism', and the 'flexibility of interpretation'.

Very few good myths tell of the colors of someones clothing, or the details of their hair.  They leave these things to vaguety, until a visual storyteller happens upon on that myth and is moved by it.

One such example I enjoy to use is the movie Alien.

At only four or five junctures does one actually see the xenomorph.  The myth and the suspense that carries that myth are rarely exposed to direct observation, just as the facts of a myth are.

The vital ingredient of cultural myths lie in the inability to directly verify or measure the facts.  The myth may contain some form of fact, but the fact is never absolutist.