Is this good? I've read Hamilton's but I want something

>>8636380

Reading it currently. Graves gets shit on a lot on /lit/ and I've never understood why, but yes it's a good read especially if you've read Hamilton already

>>8636380
Highly detailed, and his batshit theories on the myths' origins are amusing. Not bad.

>>8636400

How are they batshit? Graves claims that myths aren't mysterious in the least and are metaphorical tellings of historical events.

>>8636427
Because the rock he stands on--the idea that a huge pan-European "mother goddess" religion was driven out by manly male gods, and that this process is reflected in most myths--is horseshit based on no real evidence. I love Graves, but he took the fucking witch-cult hypothesis and ran with it (see Margaret Murray The Witch-Cult in Western Europe (1921) or ask any Wiccan or neo-pagan and they'll be happy to tell you all about it: don't tell the poor dears it's discredited bullshit).
As a collection of all Greek myths worth noting, variations included, and original primary sources clearly noted with a great index, Graves can't be beat.

Hesiod & Apollodorus
Primary sources.
Why listen to Graves's version unless of course your a huge fan?

>>8638172
Because Graves neatly organizes a lot more sources than just Hesiod and Apollodorus, and notes variations together. Try him: it's a fine mythography.

>>8636380

>>8638172
>Hesiod & Apollodorus
Yup. Add Ovid and you've got the main primary resources for classical myth.

For a secondary literary reference book OP, I like March's Penguin Book of Classical Myths. Thoroughly references primary sources. Points out the areas of diversion in the various sources during the narratives. Good index. Recommended.