>>>>>John Galt.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think purely fictional characters count as being mythical ?
>>>
>>>Sure. Even one of the dictionary definitions of 'mythical' says: without foundation in fact; imaginary; fictitious: The explanation was entirely mythical.
>>
>>So your definition of 'mythical' will include all fictional characters ?
>
>It would certainly be webster's. :o)
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical
>http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/mythical?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=mythical&sa=Search#922

Websters - Pah. It just documents how words are popularly mis-used (g)
Look at their reference to the OED definition:
1a. "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon", citing the Westminster Review of 1830 as the first English attestation.[7]
1b. "As a mass noun: such stories collectively or as a genre." (1840)
2a. "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief". (1849)
2b. "A person or thing held in awe or generally referred to with near reverential admiration on the basis of popularly repeated stories (whether real or fictitious)." (1853)
2c. "A popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates or idealizes the truth." (1928)