Fuck Ovid

>Metamorphoses makes fun of traditional myths and Greek/Roman religion.
Huh?

>mfw i just got this book
f-fuck
what should i get instead?

>knowingly reading a female author

lmao u a dumbass nigga 4 real

based

But Jacqueline de Romilly is great

I picked this up knowing nothing about Greek mythology or history, and I could instantly tell it was biased nonsense.

I knew I shouldn't read it based because it was written by a woman. i thought "but Yea Forums suggested it", cuz I usually get good books off this board, but I'm 100 pages in and it seems like shit.

Just focus on the cosmology at the beginning, and keep reviewing it until the dispassionate elements step out into the light of the foreground. It's a great satire and places Ovid among Juvenal as one of my favorite early principate poet.

Is it seriously normal for an american to go through childhood without having heard most of these stories/ myths multiple times over? There are tons of hollywood movies inspired by them, however bad most of them are.
I just don't see what one could gain from a book like this, maybe a refresher would be helpful or as a reference guide but surely there are better books than this for that purpose.

You don't even need a book, you have an internet connection. You have access to all the information you might need on whatever hero or god or story you need to know about.

True and basedpilled.

These kinds of books aren't just retellings of old myths. They're "interpretations" of classical mythology through the lens of neofeminism, Afromarxism, deconstructuralism or whatever.

I read this book as a teen because I saw it in a book store and thought it would be cool. I stopped reading it because I thought it was aimed at children. Every time I remembered that name “Edith” on the front cover, I cringed and felt that I could be reading something better than this garbage.

The book in question was published in the early 20th century, you have no idea what you're going on about. This is probably not the best board for you buddy

no, it''s interpretation through the lens of Christcuckery.

Pic related >>>>>>> meme Hamilton

Attached: 021D46DE-5F55-438A-8563-588E1A21DF7D.jpg (405x500, 51K)

Is Ovid good or bad? Is Hesiod a better source for myths?

What is a better overview of mythology? Genuinely asking because I'm fairly new and all I've read is ovid, Joseph campbell, and golden bough. I want something without pervasive and debunked ideology

Yeah, it's normie tier as hell, if you are a kid it's alright but Yea Forums should hold itself to a higher standard...

Yeah, but I promise you that you have too much of a cumbrain to read Hesiod

see

>Yea Forums, why did you trick me into reading this biased trash?
I can't speak for other anons, but, this was assigned to me in high school. I never finished it. I did not like it very much. I felt that her telling of the myths lacked soul essentially. Homer was a story teller, Hamilton is not

Explain. Why would I be unable to read Hesiod?

Yea Forums is terminally braindead

Woops didnt see that:)

>This explained by a kid with AD/HD.
Use this flowchart if you actually do it, IT HELPS A LOT!
and the circles are like fifty names of sea goddesses etc.

Attached: Hesiod.jpg (1000x742, 400K)

by "this" I mean the chart

This. I was very surprised by how biased this book is given how frequently it is shilled here. All charts need to replace it with something better

What about Bulfinch's Mythology?

Ok saved. Thanks user.

what's a better alternative?

from reading reviews, it seems like it's even worse.

You need to approach it like a Cumbrain doing nofap, else you won't get through it.
It's extremely boring but I'm happy I got through it - it makes you strong.

What would you recommend instead? Graves?
lmao why read at all just use wikipedia m8

I didn't agree with all of her points but reading this was pretty comfy. Her commentary reminds me of my heavily opinionated English teacher in middle school. I also support any romantic take that puts beauty first and everything else second.

Hesiod
Homer
Ovid
Plato

There are few analyses that are any good. Taking the gods out of the myths is like turning a Tarkovsky film into a mathematical equation. Its ugly and devoid of everything that gives it meaning.

Oh come on it's good. It's not worth anymore then a skim read but it's solid. Also, it's recommended for beginners because it's a very entry level work. Yes, you can skip it but it's good background for the real meat of the illiad, the odysee, the histories and plato and aristotle.

Attached: barney.png (496x478, 140K)

>>The Greeks made their gods in their own image. That had not entered the mind of man before.
It's shit

>not starting with Georges Dumezil

Attached: 1550193540023.jpg (1375x645, 39K)

which of his books?

>lmao, hercules was a dumbass
He was though get that stick out of your ass

wrong, he was just emotional

>She accuses him of not actually believing in myths
I've seen this claim many times, is it not true?

That is one stupid fucking line, yes. But it's a solid entry to mythology.

>lmao why read at all just use wikipedia m8
when it comes to supplementary material yes

You read poetry or philosophy, if you don't get a reference to a certain event/ mythic story, heroic figure, etc. then you find the appropriate article online

Or you could just waste your life reading a bunch of shitty background books so you can totally start with the greeks XD one day!

Don't listen to the plebs. It's a fine read an Hamilton tells the myths and tales as objectively as possible based on the multitude of sources.

Bias and inaccuracies aside, is the book comprehensive ? Do we hear of all major and minor characters of mythology, or just the big stories like Hercules, illiad, pantheon, asterion, actheon, etc.

Just read it you faggot, ignore the people here who act like their brains are untainted by anything but the best works. 90% of them don't even read books. The book is fine anyways

Ovid is so much fun. The metamorphosis is a joy.

Bulfinch or Graves, though Graves infuses a lot of his own theories in his book, though that's mostly in the footnotes. Graves does have the advantage of being much more comprehensive.