/lit/ - Literature

>>19477602
What is the functional difference between myth and modern fiction? I don't disagree with your points necessarily, but take something like Blood Meridian and Lord of the Rings. Both stories try to demonstrate a past in explanation of something. Does Blood Meridian's proximity to the present somehow make it different in essence, or do both stories occupy the same 'space' as it were? That is, the space of the human 'myth'.
Of course, Blood Meridian is much better written and tackles more serious issues than Lord of the Rings, I'm more wondering if there can even be 'fantasy' as a concept. Aren't all stories told by humans technically 'fantasy' in that for the most part they haven't happened, even the true ones? Eye witnesses misremember shit all the time.

As a side note, does Fantasy need to be connected to our own history to be good? I find it's often the case. Lord of the Rings and Conan the Barbarian are exemplars of the genre, and both technically take place in the same universe as ours.