Customer Reviews

Introduction to Mythology: Contemporary Approaches to Classical and World Myths

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The myths (fascinating) are clearly presented, with bold-face type stressing important points, but the reading is interrupted by commentaries in the margins. The introductory remarks are often written in such convoluted style that they are more confusing than illuminating. Tiny, unclear photos of related artworks are next to worthless.

This text is interesting in that it reads more like an anthology than a textbook. It is mostly composed of selections from the sourcetexts of the various myths, and when the authors do write their own material about the selections and such, their chapters feel more like news articles. This causes reading the book to feel more like reading a book for enjoyment than for being taught. I think this is a very positive thing, since the book feels less pedagogue-ish and yet is still quite informative. The only thing I see missing is family trees of the divine lineages, which would be most useful for studying Norse mythology, to use the most prominent example.

I also found it unfortunate that the sections on Norse Myth use Sturluson's Prose Edda for the source text rather than the Poetic Edda, the more legitimate source. Apparently they did this to show how mythic texts rationalize their contents. In Sturluson's case, he decided to claim that the ancient Icelandic people simply forgot the Christian faith over time, even though the Germanic religion was practiced all over northern Europe for centuries before Christianity ever existed. Gotta love that medieval scholarship.

I am using this text in a "World Mythology" course; it was assigned to me.

The texts are adequate, but not outstanding. The following is a partial list of major texts, specifically the ones I have chosen to focus on:

Hesiod
Ovid
Enuma Elish
Epic of Gilgamesh
Genesis
Prose Edda
texts from southwestern Amerind tribes
Africa (specifically the "Mwindo epic") and Afro-American trickster stories
Ramayana
a few texts from Homeric Hymns and Apollodorus
a reading from *Gods and Myths of Northern Europe*.

Major topics include: creation, destruction; gods, heroes, and tricksters, and ritual.

Other texts--ones I will not be using--include a Chinese creation story, and "Oedipus the King." Nor will I be using extensive material on Joseph Campbell, structuralism, Mary Douglas on ritual, and Jungian and Proppian interpretations. Campbell is especially problematic because most scholarly specialists in myth studies reject his approach. In fact, I have a lecture on "why we will not be studying Campbell." (In short, he assumes what he needs to prove: that there is a universal hero myth. To make his theory work is to "pound square blocks into round holes." The editors' attempt to interpret the Epic of Gilgamesh as an example of the "mono myth" is especially silly, and is good evidence why the approach doesn't work.) I'm not using the other secondary material since we barely have time to interact the primary and important texts, as it is.

I understand the choice for the Prose Edda over the Poetic Edda, and the editors correctly emphasize the fact that Snorri is a Christian, looking at the Norse stories as a dead tradition. But they don't give the student any sense for the tradition that Snorri is reinterpreting. It would have been simple to include the Völupsa, for example, and allow the student to *see* the process of reinterpretation.

The text used in the Epic of Gilgamesh is old, an amalgam of different *versions*--Standard, Old Babylonian, and Hittite. There is no explanation of the textual-critical problems of this approach. There are newer, "rawer" texts available. As noted, this amalgam permits the editors to try to shoehorn the Epic to fit Campbell's mono myth, even if there it doesn't work anyway.

Finally, The editors might be fine scholars of literature, but they simply don't understand mythic and religious texts. One egregious example: In the Ramayana, the second wife wants the kingship for her own son, instead of Rama. Her maid reminds her that the king has promised her two "boons," and decides to "call in the chips" by demanding that the king give the kingship to her son and exile Rama. To get it, she goes into a "chamber of wrath." The editors say that this chamber is for mourning loved ones, and that for her son *not* to get the kingship would be for him to die (p. 211).

That didn't sound right. Ancient peoples don't respond to death with "wrath," but with "mourning." They are two very different emotions. It took about an hour of internet research, using literal translations of the Ramayana, to verify my suspicion. The room is not a room for mourning, but, in one translation, a "sulking room". It is a room in the women's quarters, when they are mad about something and want to sulk. The king wants to have sex with her, finds her in this room, and driven by his lust, helplessly gives in to her demands. It gives a very different "spin" on the story. Furthermore, the threatened death is not the death of the son, but the death of wife, if she doesn't get what she wants.

Another much simpler example: neither Aphrodite nor Ishtar are the goddess of love. They are goddesses of *lust,* sexual passion. (In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Ishtar is explicitly linked to war.)

Another scholarly problem is the editors' simplistic use of the documentary hypothesis in interpreting Genesis. That's "old hat"; there are much better contemporary approaches.

So okay for texts, but be prepared to do a lot of research and extra reading to get the full meaning and nuances of some of the texts: especially the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Prose Edda (and the Norse tradition in general), and the Ramayana.

I was interested in taking a course using this textbook. I ordered the book. I returned the book. I am not taking the course.

The authors may be excellent organizers. The book has plenty of structure with this indentation of one type related to that indentation of another type. The problem is the prose. Like Chinese food served in Montana, the prose lack zest. Classical mythology, my main interest, is full of passion; the authors have sucked the passion out of the stories.

And one other thing, Star Wars is not myth in any sense that makes myth interesting.

I may be biased having had Dr. Devinney for a Prof a few times in the past, but this book is so well organized and clear that I recommend it to anyone. I was espically impressed with the structure!

For starters, I did not receive this book on time. While waiting an addition 2 weeks for the book, I was faced with the unfortunate task of paying full price for a new book in the student book store on campus. When I contacted the seller and told them that I had sent it back with the intent of getting a refund, they claimed to have never received the book and therefore denied me the money. This was the worst experience with an Amazon seller I have ever had.

We found that the book was a little too used, with a lot of highlights and hand written notes...but the price was good