>>>>>>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 ?
>>
>>Unless somebody gives me a good reason it shouldn't. Before going to the dictionary, I always took mythical to simply mean "made up".
>
>I thought that a 'mythical' being is one that does not (as far as is known) exist but that many people do (or did) believe to be real.
>In a similar vein a myth cannot be attributed to a known writer but is rooted in 'folklore'
>
>If those definitions are not true then why do we need the word 'mythical' - 'fictional' does the job.
>If either of the above *does* apply that John Galt would not qualify.
>
> >"Mythological' is a different issue altogether. I always considered mythological beings to be those that are part of the mythological pantheon of gods and warriors.
>
>I didn't know there was a distinction between 'mythological' and 'mythical' ......
>
>>If I had to go that route and pick a favourite character, I suppose I'd go with the Celtic myths and settle on somebody like Cuchullain or Fion Mac Cumhaill. The Celtic stories always have appealed to me - just in front of the Norse tales.
>
>Have you read the Mabinogion, the White Book of Rhydderch or the Red Book of Hergest ? (just getting some Welsh licks in there (g))

I suspect anybody with even a rudimentary interest in the Celtic/Welsh mythologies has read some version or other of the Mabinogion. If I recall, doesn't the Mabinogion actually form part of the Red Book of Hergest. I have to admit to not having read the rest of the Red Book though. I've also never read the White Book of Rhydderch.