I don't know how, or what we did, but...

We've hit 500 visits per day!!!

Yes, we got a HNQ. But that was a 150 visits per day increase from our wimpy 350!

What's bad... More tumbleweeds. We used to have 0, but after my 1st one, we got all the way to 3.

Also, most of the High-rep users have gone silent. Many of the before active users have now their reputation graphs sloping off.

What's better- overall answer quality. Ever since the joining of Adinkra, several people have joined and have been giving high quality answers.

What needs to be worked on: question quantity. 50 questions spans out to be a bit less than 2 months, which is exceptionally bad.

Well, what do ya'll have to say?


2 Answers 2


Although this is clearly an unpopular position (and I'm sure I'll be voted down here as in my Is Cthulhu on or off topic?";) I think we can expand traffic by allowing modern mythologies to be discussed.

My reason is this: All mythologies are fictional. Do we merely restrict discussion to mythologies considered ancient? But then how ancient? Where is the cut off line? Gilgamesh and the Prose Edda are far more temporally distant than the Prose Edda and Lovecraft. In 10,000 years, will D'Aulaire be taken as canonical? His work will certainly be seen as quite ancient to a person of that time. Not to mention that D'Aulaire was my introduction to both Greek and Norse mythology as I'm sure it was to so many. Classical Mythology demonstrates unequivocally that the canon is a process of multiple artists riffing on the same characters and themes.

Archaic mythologies were almost certainly oral tradition before they find their way into text, and certainly remained in the oral tradition afterwards, as most people were illiterate until fairly recently.

I've seen questions on the Grimm's work, which drew heavily from folklore, but also probably contains much that they invented. Even if we don't consider Lovecraft to be proper mythology, it has certainly become legitimate folklore, and has had influence on later work consistent with traditional mythologies.

But aside from the philosophical point, I bring this up b/c if traffic is what we want, allowing popular, modern mythologies is one way to get it.

I recognize that this may be a Pandora's box, but a way to limit which modern mythologies are allowed is that they have had to significantly influence subsequent work that is generally known. (Thus, Spagetti Monster, Longcat/Tacgnol, and the mythologies of Essos and Westeros don't make the cut.)

Tolkien might be similar to Lovecraft in that his work significantly influenced an entire popular genre. I wouldn't necessarily allow question on subjects such as the plot or characters in "Lord of the Rings", but discussion of the underlying mythology, which is particularly well documented in the Silmarillion, would be consistent with the type of discussion and scholarship we're tying to encourage.

It's also worth noting that neither Tolkien or Lovecraft were merely pulling these ideas "out of their butts" but both were, in a very real sense, trying to reconstruct lost mythologies--that of the Elves for Tolkien and the elder, pre-human gods for Lovecraft (recall that redemption is a fairly recent concept in human religion.)

  • 1
    -1 I think you are dramatically overestimating the amount of people who are interested in discussing Cthulhu mythology. But more to the point, the reason why Cthulhu is off-topic isn't because it's recent, but because it's fictional. I would be OK with questions that discuss modern folklore (e.g. ghost stories).
    – user62
    Sep 8, 2016 at 19:15
  • @Hamlet "fictional" as opposed to the other "true" mythologies? Those terms are not apropos. It would be better to use "traditional" vs. "modern"
    – DukeZhou
    Sep 8, 2016 at 19:17
  • 4
    "fictional" as in a single author wrote them and they aren't really believed/used outside the context of that single author.
    – user62
    Sep 8, 2016 at 19:39
  • 1
    You might be interested in this discussion of the difference between "fakelore" and folklore: m.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4h153a/…
    – user62
    Sep 8, 2016 at 19:42
  • @Hamlet Also, in sub-cultural circles I move in, people are obsessed with Cthulhu. There are endless types of merchandise and even been "Hello Kitty" variants. I did a google search for Odin and came up with ~40M results. Cthulhu yielded 17M, and has existed for less than 100 years. [EXCELLENT link on "fakelore" btw!]
    – DukeZhou
    Sep 8, 2016 at 19:46
  • 6
    There's already a place for Lovecraft questions on the network, Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange. Why would anyone ask their Cthulhu questions here, and not there?
    – yannis Mod
    Sep 11, 2016 at 19:02
  • Certainly most stories use plots and references to mythology, but the key point Gibet recognizes is that Lovecraft created something that took on a life of it's own, and became a legitimate mythology, regardless of whether we have to wait a few hundred or thousand years for it to be viewed as canonical. But I won't continue to argue the point, since I understand the desire to focus on "traditional" mythology.
    – DukeZhou
    Sep 26, 2016 at 19:39

I'm in two minds about this.

  • Should you not just let it happen as it falls?

  • I may become active if the Internet-as-a-source ban is dropped. Again, I doubt if that gives you what you really want.

  • I really like @cybermike's suggestion with the limitation the cut should be made for topics with real life followers BTW.
    – user746
    Sep 11, 2016 at 6:13
  • 2
    Not entirely sure what you mean with "Internet-as-a-source ban". We do downvote answers with poor or no sources, but we don't outright ban them.
    – yannis Mod
    Sep 11, 2016 at 19:04
  • @Yannis, I refer to this: meta.mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/105/…
    – user746
    Sep 12, 2016 at 7:25
  • I don't see anything in there about an "Internet-as-a-source ban".
    – yannis Mod
    Sep 12, 2016 at 7:29
  • @Yannis, the actual situation is that if you give an answer that only has Wikipedia sources, you WILL get down-voted. I abbreviated that as 'Internet-as-a-source ban'. It sure keeps me away.
    – user746
    Sep 12, 2016 at 7:33
  • 3
    Your single answer on the site offers only Wikipedia articles as references, yet it's positevely scored. Is the single downvote it got what you interpret as a site wide "Internet-as-a-source ban"?
    – yannis Mod
    Sep 15, 2016 at 9:31
  • @Yannis: Nope. The comment <quote>We require sources to be more than simply Wikipedia;</quote> and the feeling of falling short.
    – user746
    Sep 15, 2016 at 16:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .