Scan barcode
birdkeeperklink's review against another edition
2.0
This book took me three years to read, but that's more than a little misleading, as I didn't read out of it at all for at least a year. It is still censure enough against the book, though--I ran out of momentum largely because it's so dull.
I'm not unfamiliar with the epic form--I read Beowulf in school (a very poor translation of it, as it turns out, but the essentials are the same, and I still enjoyed it), and Lord of the Rings, very much written in the style of the old epics, is in my top ten favorite books of all time. So the form itself isn't the issue. The writer is the problem. I don't know how you can describe a battle and make it as dull as he can--I'm terrible at writing action scenes, but even mine seem positively amazing by comparison. (Admittedly, Bulfinch was handicapped by transcribing from the various existing works on each subject, but he seems to have made every effort to make it duller, rather than bringing it to life.) Very dull, very flat stuff. Incomplete, to boot, as a lot of Greek mythology I was familiar with even from reading children's books on the subject were distressingly absent.
So why two stars, not one? Well, it wasn't entirely without merit. I'm glad I read it. Firstly, the Arthurian tales gave me a whole new appreciation for another book ([b:A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court|162898|A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court|Mark Twain|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348239402s/162898.jpg|2621763]), as I hadn't appreciated the context previously. Secondly, while I had a good base of Greek mythology from school and from my own casual interest in the subject, I had never read any Arthurian mythology, nor learned anything of the Legends of Charlemagne. This book states in the very beginning that it's for people who want to make sense of the allusions they hear, and it does fulfill that purpose well. No, every allusion you ever hear will not suddenly make sense, but a fair chunk of them. If your education was not well-rounded, as mine was not (it's only in recent years that I've come to realize how very 'American-centric' it was), then this fills in some gaps nicely. I have to allow the book some gratitude for that, as it was the very reason I picked it up in the first place. My horizons broadened, a few gaps in my education filled, and I feel just a sliver more intellectually competent than I did before reading it.
As to the stories themselves--were they enjoyable? A few were, once you got past the overly effusive language (seriously, not all of them can be 'the greatest EVAH!'), mostly the Greek mythology. I lost steam shortly into the Arthurian tales, but once I picked it up again, I was able to enjoy some of them.
The last third or so of the book was much less enjoyable than the first two segments, though--the 'King Richard and the Crusades' bits made me uncomfortable. It's hard to get behind the 'Christian might' invading the homeland of 'infidels' who never did anything to them, save for setting up house in a spot the Christians considered 'theirs.' The parallels are not exact, but close enough that I found myself very much against the Christian crusaders, scorning their 'glorious victories'--unprovoked murders of innocents who committed no crime against them. Religious wars are always the same, it seems. Very frustrating, very depressing.
Oh, and Robin Hood was an idiot. That was disappointing.
The Legends of Charlemagne were a little teensy bit better, if only because the Saracens are often the instigators. It's easier to support the people defending their homeland. The language, however, was still very offensive. Although its worst crime was how dreadfully dull it was. Most of it consisted of 'and they rode around looking for [person/object/adventure/blood].' Not very fun to read about people riding around in circles, meeting their long-lost loves, getting separated after five minutes, and then riding around in circles again. It did have its moments of enjoyment, but be prepared for a lot of dullness.
In sum, this book is educational but not exactly exciting. It does what it set out to do and little else. Still, a worthwhile reference to keep on the shelf.
I'm not unfamiliar with the epic form--I read Beowulf in school (a very poor translation of it, as it turns out, but the essentials are the same, and I still enjoyed it), and Lord of the Rings, very much written in the style of the old epics, is in my top ten favorite books of all time. So the form itself isn't the issue. The writer is the problem. I don't know how you can describe a battle and make it as dull as he can--I'm terrible at writing action scenes, but even mine seem positively amazing by comparison. (Admittedly, Bulfinch was handicapped by transcribing from the various existing works on each subject, but he seems to have made every effort to make it duller, rather than bringing it to life.) Very dull, very flat stuff. Incomplete, to boot, as a lot of Greek mythology I was familiar with even from reading children's books on the subject were distressingly absent.
So why two stars, not one? Well, it wasn't entirely without merit. I'm glad I read it. Firstly, the Arthurian tales gave me a whole new appreciation for another book ([b:A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court|162898|A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court|Mark Twain|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348239402s/162898.jpg|2621763]), as I hadn't appreciated the context previously. Secondly, while I had a good base of Greek mythology from school and from my own casual interest in the subject, I had never read any Arthurian mythology, nor learned anything of the Legends of Charlemagne. This book states in the very beginning that it's for people who want to make sense of the allusions they hear, and it does fulfill that purpose well. No, every allusion you ever hear will not suddenly make sense, but a fair chunk of them. If your education was not well-rounded, as mine was not (it's only in recent years that I've come to realize how very 'American-centric' it was), then this fills in some gaps nicely. I have to allow the book some gratitude for that, as it was the very reason I picked it up in the first place. My horizons broadened, a few gaps in my education filled, and I feel just a sliver more intellectually competent than I did before reading it.
As to the stories themselves--were they enjoyable? A few were, once you got past the overly effusive language (seriously, not all of them can be 'the greatest EVAH!'), mostly the Greek mythology. I lost steam shortly into the Arthurian tales, but once I picked it up again, I was able to enjoy some of them.
The last third or so of the book was much less enjoyable than the first two segments, though--the 'King Richard and the Crusades' bits made me uncomfortable. It's hard to get behind the 'Christian might' invading the homeland of 'infidels' who never did anything to them, save for setting up house in a spot the Christians considered 'theirs.' The parallels are not exact, but close enough that I found myself very much against the Christian crusaders, scorning their 'glorious victories'--unprovoked murders of innocents who committed no crime against them. Religious wars are always the same, it seems. Very frustrating, very depressing.
Oh, and Robin Hood was an idiot. That was disappointing.
The Legends of Charlemagne were a little teensy bit better, if only because the Saracens are often the instigators. It's easier to support the people defending their homeland. The language, however, was still very offensive. Although its worst crime was how dreadfully dull it was. Most of it consisted of 'and they rode around looking for [person/object/adventure/blood].' Not very fun to read about people riding around in circles, meeting their long-lost loves, getting separated after five minutes, and then riding around in circles again. It did have its moments of enjoyment, but be prepared for a lot of dullness.
In sum, this book is educational but not exactly exciting. It does what it set out to do and little else. Still, a worthwhile reference to keep on the shelf.
disconightwing's review
4.0
I failed at updating my reading progress of this one.
But I'm docking a star because using the Greek names and the Roman names interchangably really annoyed me.
But I'm docking a star because using the Greek names and the Roman names interchangably really annoyed me.
weneed_mobrown's review against another edition
3.0
I finally finished it after owning this book for ~10 years! I originally bought it when I was interested in Greek and Roman Mythology, and had been told that this was THE book for all of the stories. I really enjoyed the annotations of where the myths were referenced in common poetry and literature. It gave me a few of those "ah hah!" moments when reading a story and making the connections.
I wasn't aware until about half way through the book that it also contained other stories/myths/legends from other parts of the world. While it didn't catch my interest at first, learning some of the stories about King Arthur, Knights of the Round Table, and Charlemagne were very entertaining. It felt a lot like reading Shakespeare at times when the characters spoke, so that made it a bit difficult to read.
Overall, probably the longest book I've read so far, and it was a bit of a struggle, but I'm very happy I did, and parts were fairly enjoyable to read!
I wasn't aware until about half way through the book that it also contained other stories/myths/legends from other parts of the world. While it didn't catch my interest at first, learning some of the stories about King Arthur, Knights of the Round Table, and Charlemagne were very entertaining. It felt a lot like reading Shakespeare at times when the characters spoke, so that made it a bit difficult to read.
Overall, probably the longest book I've read so far, and it was a bit of a struggle, but I'm very happy I did, and parts were fairly enjoyable to read!
cat_queen005's review against another edition
informative
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? N/A
- Loveable characters? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
lilybear's review against another edition
4.0
I'm a sucker for mythology, especially Greek mythology. This book is a really great read to get the lay of the land. But I do strongly suggest researching your favorite tales cause bulfinch tends to give the g rated version.
spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
2.0
Five stars for the historical importance of Bulfinch's work; no stars for the accuracy (note the little "first published in 1855").
thatrandombookworm's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
4.75
This book was so incredibly fun. I enjoyed reading about some of the myths I love, and learning slightly different versions of them. I will forever find mythology interesting. Yes it was dense, went through the stories fast and didn't linger on any of them, but I enjoyed that about them. However, because of this I understand that it isn't everyone's cup of tea. I would recommend this book for people who love mythology. Over all, this was a very amazing book, and I will find use of the knowledge in this book.
alexiachantel's review against another edition
4.0
A beautifully bound volume of mythology. I wish there had been more on the Norse and Celtic lore, but still a fun read.
abomine's review against another edition
2.75
While it's certainly an important work in the long and storied history of mythology retellings, it's too prudish for modern adults and too dry for modern children. Read it once for its historical importance in the genre, but don't bother re-reading.