Scan barcode
jasminewoods02's review against another edition
1.0
Bulfinch’s Mythology is about the Greek and Roman mythologies where the book is divided into three separate sections: The Age of Fable or Stories of Gods and Heroes, The Age of Chivalry, and finally Legends of Charlemagne or Romance of the Middle Ages. This book goes over the many stories of both the Greek gods and goddesses and the Roman gods and goddesses.
When I first read this book in the middle of 10th grade, I already knew what I was getting into since in 7th grade I learned about the Greek gods and goddesses then. I was intrigued by learning about the Roman gods and goddesses since their names and meanings were easy to remember than that of the Greek gods and goddesses.
Since we only read bits and parts of the entirety of the book, when it came to learning about the battles and other stories, I was bored out of my mind. The stories just didn’t keep my interest in the book for long.
There was a lot of action when reading certain parts when it came down to the characters, the ones I remember are Beowulf and the god of the underworld. I really did enjoy learning about the many different gods and goddesses, the meaning of their names, their stories, and what their names were in Roman and Greek mythology.
The environment of the book varied depending on which part of the book you were at, and which story you read because of the difference between Roman and Greek mythology.
Finally, there was plenty of romance within the stories of Roman and Greek mythology, the writing style was told in 3rd person to have a better understanding of the characters and the plot. I would not recommend this book and I would never re-read this unless I wanted to know more about the gods and goddesses. This is why I gave Bulfinch’s Mythology a 1-star rating.
When I first read this book in the middle of 10th grade, I already knew what I was getting into since in 7th grade I learned about the Greek gods and goddesses then. I was intrigued by learning about the Roman gods and goddesses since their names and meanings were easy to remember than that of the Greek gods and goddesses.
Since we only read bits and parts of the entirety of the book, when it came to learning about the battles and other stories, I was bored out of my mind. The stories just didn’t keep my interest in the book for long.
There was a lot of action when reading certain parts when it came down to the characters, the ones I remember are Beowulf and the god of the underworld. I really did enjoy learning about the many different gods and goddesses, the meaning of their names, their stories, and what their names were in Roman and Greek mythology.
The environment of the book varied depending on which part of the book you were at, and which story you read because of the difference between Roman and Greek mythology.
Finally, there was plenty of romance within the stories of Roman and Greek mythology, the writing style was told in 3rd person to have a better understanding of the characters and the plot. I would not recommend this book and I would never re-read this unless I wanted to know more about the gods and goddesses. This is why I gave Bulfinch’s Mythology a 1-star rating.
zdheller's review against another edition
informative
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jeslyncat's review against another edition
4.0
A little off because it lacks a tone of authority about the characters is defines and describes.
samuelson_obi's review against another edition
2.0
2.5 stars because of how expansive it was. Sadly it was a bit brief on the Egyptians. If I had no experience of mythology, I probably would have given it a higher rating, nevertheless I still found a lot of the stories useful. Plus, I realised that a fair few stories about Charlemagne and his paladins mirrored both King Arthur and his Knights of the round table, as well as carbon copied some of the more popular Greek myths.
It was okay and then some.
It was okay and then some.
jammasterjamie's review against another edition
3.0
Any questions you've ever had about mythology are all answered in this book in a relatively easy and readable format. Bullfinch's is the bible of mythology, lain out in short-story form. Always interesting, and easy to set aside for later as well if something more intriguing comes along.
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 against another edition
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.