G. S. Kirk (1921–2003)

This is an academic book written in a very ponderous and somewhat arrogant style. If it has any value, it is historical, as a text that helps us to understand the state of mythological studies towards the tail end of the 1960s if that matters to you.

While Kirk can be almost snidely brutal about other academics and there is the prevailing scent of old battles of little current importance, his primary interest is in responding (favourably if cautiously) to the emergence in France of show more Levy-Strauss' structuralist approach to myth.

This element in the book has some small value but it has to be said that, by the end of the book, after 285 pages of argument, I was still no wiser as to the meaning or function of myth. Occasional insights had scarcely made the effort of reading it worthwhile. It stays in the library - but only just. show less

This is an interesting theoretical interpretation of the Greek myths. The first third of the book deals with the nature of myths in general and provides a clear and accessible overview of major theories of interpretation from the disciplines of anthropology,philosophy and psychology. Kirk then applies his own theoretical synthesis to the Greek myths. I found his analysis of the hero myths, especially Heracles interesting. The book ends with a thought provoking chapter on mythical and show more philosophical thinking.

I was disappointed that author did not examine gender and gender roles in myth, a topic which interests me. However, I learned a lot from the book and it left me with much to think about. show less

Not rated; when Kirk says this is meant to be read by the serious student, who has a copy of the Oxford Classic Text of the Iliad (the ancient Greek text) open at the same time, he is not kidding. Totally useless to the casual student of classics whose command of ancient Greek is, shall we say, negligible. :( Also, the introduction has the unmistakable flavor of grudgewank, that tang and savor, although I'm not conversant in '80's classics academia, so I can't identify what is provoking the show more crazy.

(Oh. He's the Regius Professor of Classics at Cambridge. All is explained! Okay, not really, but it amuses the hell out of me to pretend that all Regius Professors are mad.) show less

Spends too much time trash talking the systems of deeper thinkers and better writers, but still makes some good points about the variety of possible origins and functions ("narrative, operative or validatory, and speculative or explanatory") of myth, its nuance, arguments for the localized social meaning of many mythic stories, but also generally a seriousness of purpose, a recurrence of themes, and a connection to a radically different concept of time than the historical/chronological.