 |
| via Wikimedia Commons |
I just wonder every time I teach it, what is it other than a low-level survey of ancient literature? I throw in some mythological theory just to try to be somewhat true to the subject matter. But I feel like that's more relevant to the later works that use Greek mythology than it is to the original works themselves. Especially if that's all you're going to read.
Take Oedipus Rex, for example (Please :)). It's clearly compelling to interpret it from a psychological standpoint. So we read it and talk about the characters' psychology. I feel like I should then go and try to interpret it using one of the other theories of myth we've studied. The ideological approach, perhaps.
But most undergrads (especially those with a very firm idea of what a lower-level class should be like) won't go there with you, frankly. The idea that you explain a work one way and then turn around and explain it the other way is something they're not willing to entertain.
So you end up reading OR and then talking about psychology. Exactly like you would do in a lit. survey course.
Myth might be a more meaningful course if you could span time periods a bit more. Read Greek tragedy and then some of the neoclassical works by Racine, the Odyssey and then a bit of Joyce, maybe. But again, students are overwhelmingly likely (in my opinion) to see that as exceeding one's brief. And maybe they're right. Pin It
2 comments:
The students are unable to grasp that you can understand or analyse something from more than one perspective? Poor students with such restricted thinking! I know they often get this "we are paying for this" style of utilarian thinking about their education, but it seems to me to be a massive cop-out. I love to explore seven different ways to understand a problem. To me, that's how you come to understand it.
When I did my first classics degree I loved mythology as a topic: our base-level subject was called something like 'Myth Magic Religion' ... it juxtaposed those three concepts so it wasn't all straight mythology. My entry point into classics in general was actually through a well-worn copy of Robert Graves' Greek Myths ... the sort of thing you need to understand European painting ... and certainly I find that questions I get from laypersons on the topic seem to approach ancient Religion through that (mythological) prism. They don't understand completely the separation of myth from religious concepts and practice (I guess because Christianity seems to conflate the two). Not, now years later, that I have anything to do with it much anymore; at some point I was thoroughly diverted into a PhD in Roman historiography.
Your point is well taken, Scot. It may help to rename/restructure our myth course at some point, so that students know to expect more than just stories of gods and goddesses.
Post a Comment