Having received a comment about defining the terms herein, I see there's no single page that really covers them all, so here goes:
Like the header says, my first priority is to talk about how the elements of various types of shows tend to fall into one of three phenomenalities: naturalistic, uncanny, and marvelous. I recently conceived of them as three concentric circles. The innermost circle is the sphere of everything we pattern directly on perceived reality, both in cognitive and affective terms. The midmost circle is about the same size, because it reproduces all the same cognitive patterns, but the affective patterns suggest the larger-than-life without actually violating the limitations on what the audience dominantly believes to be naturalistically possible. The third circle, the marvelous, is actually as close as we can get to an infinitely expanding sphere, since the creators of the marvelous combine cognitive and affective patterns both from perceived reality and from conceived reality.
Mythicity denotes how well each story deals with symbolic discourse. I distinguish four levels-- poor, fair, good and the very rare superior (BLADE RUNNER, for example).
What I term the Fryean mythoi are four patterns of storytelling I adapted from the works of Northrop Frye, and these are based on what sort of conflict is most important to the story: that of the adventure, the drama, the comedy and the irony. Again, almost impossible to sum up without reference to the other blog.
Having heard that Joseph Campbell's heirs might be a bit on the litigious side, I might someday have to drop the references to his work. But to me his best insight stems from his "four functions," which were meant to address the types of knowledge encoded in myths: cosmological (dealing with physical reality), metaphysical (dealing with whatever is believed to underlie physical reality), psychological (dealing with the individual's internal dynamics), and sociological (dealing with the dynamics of the society). I've termed all of these "epistemological patterns" because they deal with analyzing the nature of knowledge in fiction-- which is, to be sure, not homologous with the nature of knowledge in philosophy and other forms of alleged non-fiction. In some ways I think the insight might be even more relevant to literature than to religion, myth and folklore, but since Campbell didn't choose to devote much attention to literature I decided to apply his criteria here for the sake of an experiment-- even if it means I can't ever reproduce the experiment, say in book-form.