There is a difference between ‘myth’ and ‘rumour’. Though both traverse generations mostly by words of mouth, ‘myth’ is accepted as an authentic story – traditional history, and rumour as a plane – sometimes baseless – gossip.
Lately, I was wondering why we rumour around. And what do we get from it?
Psychology Today writes an interesting article upon it. It says: rumours dissipate because of repetition. People repeat shocking stories only to see whether they can be confirmed, and this very act of repetition adds credibility to rumours.
The deduced result is that rumours are here because we love shocking, non-conventional, rebellious things. The profligacy of rumours needs spice. Only to act as a fuel, keep up the interest, and attract more and more people inflow. This spice can be anything from violence to perversion to satyriasis to plain salaciousness to anything. As far as it raises brows, and shock, it is all right. Contrary to it, myths, and legends, are spread intentionally to keep the conventions, traditions intact. Myths need righteousness, so-called morality and stooge obedience. It appears that both are contrast to each other.
Anyways, there are few interesting things I came to know while dabbling in it. Like: Hitler was not impotent, though he had only one testicle. Caligula wasn’t a prurient sex-maniac, though he had incest relationships.
The rumours around these stories sold like anything. The point is, all of them were related to sex – because sex sells.
It sells because we feel shock in it, we feel current in it, because it’s suppressed, because it’s a taboo, because sex is today’s spice.
Is this all good?