The article discusses the problem of emic (“inner”) commentary on folklore texts as a text-producing strategy that continues and transforms the plot. In the materials of folklore and post-folklore, the author considers how emic commentary “works” in the case of mythological prose. For comparison, we take the oral tradition of Russian Old Believers of the Perm region and a particular segment of the internet lore – publications in communities specializing in “mystical stories”. The substantive commentary on belief narratives in both cases represents a new text – a narrative (a bylichka), a non-narrative explanation (a pover’e), or an instruction (how one should/should not act). A story agon usually occurs if a belief narrative is offered in response. In the oral tradition, such agons may cycle around mythological characters, motifs, actual loci and persons. In the case of internet lore, cyclization around characters, motifs, or the general theme of “mystical accident” is possible. At the same time, comments on belief narratives on the Internet exhibit greater diversity compared to those in the oral tradition. In addition to the common types of comments – belief narrative, non-narrative explanation, instruction, clarifying question, and emotional response – in internet lore, one can find doubts about the authenticity of the story, criticism of it, and evaluation of the performance.