Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010

Was he the one who burnt the bannocks?

They are about to make yet another sequel. This time I guess they'll
have to call it Grumpy Old Max.

FWIW (which may be very little if you belief that urban legends and
urban myths are different and this is a distinguishing point), the
alt.folklore.urban FAQ says that urban legends can be true and often
have a basis in fact:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/folklore-faq/part1/

An urban legend:
   * appears mysteriously and spreads spontaneously in varying
     forms,
   * contains elements of humor or horror (the horror often
     "punishes" someone who flouts society's conventions).
   * makes good storytelling.
   * does NOT have to be false, although most are.  ULs often
     have a basis in fact, but it's their life after-the-fact
     (particularly in reference to the second and third points)
    that gives them particular interest.
...
As noted elsewhere in this list and by astute individuals on the net,
an
UL does not have to be false.  If we take the example of "The
Unsolvable
Math Problem" (see below), we find that mathematician George Dantzig
is
the probable individual involved.  So is this story no longer an UL?
Jan Harold Brunvand addresses this issue thusly:

    "Despite finding its [The Unsolvable Math Problem] apparent
     origin, I continue to accept anonymous versions as legendary.
     Here's why."

    "An oral story is a story, whatever its origin.  As long as a
     story continues to circulate in different variations, partly
     by word of mouth, we may regard it as folklore.  But probably
     'The Unsolvable Math Problem' legend should no longer be
     discussed as strictly 'apocryphal,' since we now seem to have
     found its source, and the deviations from the original incident
     are easily recognized and are not excessive."

                        - JHB, _Curses!  Broiled Again!_, p. 282

Veracity is interesting but far from the only thing when it comes to
the study of urban legends.

The myth as told will be untrue, but not infrequently it may be a
serial elaboration of something that is true.

I once witnessed how the process can start.  I had seen a piece on the
news (complete with footage, so I was sure it was true).  I talked
about it at lunch the next day and added what you might call an
"ironic coda" as a joke at the end, being confident that everybody at
my table understood that the bit at the end was something I made up.
Later that afternoon, I heard somebody who had been at the *next*
table repeat the story--including my coda--with no indication that the
last element wasn't actually part of the story.  He obviously hadn't
realized that I had been joking, and it *did* make it a better story.

I've also heard people who obviously misheard news reports make up
(upon being challenged) ways in which what they thought they heard
could be plausible and, again, people who hear it not be able to
distinguish between what was reported and what was made up.

And, of course, I've heard people relate things the saw in fiction and
have others repeat it as if it had been reported as happening in fact.