Talk:Modern understanding of Greek mythology

Rating
Having read this article, while it is a good first draft I don't feel it merits a "B" grade. There are just too many problems with it.

First, there is no clear initial overview of the subject. Modern analysis of Greek mythology takes several different approaches; this article only mentions two, "comparative mythology" & "psychoanalytic approaches". There are more, which include philology, explanation as "nature-myths", how myths represent social institutions, thru structuralism, & post-structuralism, & as symbolic, or mythopoetic, expositions. While the last is something of a fringe theory, it has a notable following -- consider the popularity of Robert Graves' mythology writings.

Second, the opening paragraph reads oddly, as if it is still being thought out. The opening sentence begins "The genesis of modern understanding of Greek mythology is regarded by some scholars as a double reaction at the end of the 18th century", yet only one "reaction" is given. And the statement "the Christian reinterpretation of myth as a 'lie' or fable" raises the question that if Greek mythology was deprecated, why did it remain so important in the vocabulary of the culture of Western Civilization?

And when presenting those two approaches, nothing is said about what they reveal about Greek mythology. We are just given lists of the people who advocate these approaches -- incomplete lists. And at the end appears a section "Origin theories", without explaining how this information fits into the organization of the article. Are these theories the result of comparative mythology, or psychoanalytic approaches, or one of the approaches that were not mentioned? -- llywrch (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)