Brown 1

Jenna Brown

Masha Fedorova

Writing 2

21 February 2018

Greek Mythology: A Fight

Everything we read can be categorized into a genre of literature, but how do these differ

from one another? Each has its own specific goal, style of writing, audience, and form that

separates it from the rest. Academic writing is one of these genres, yet it can be further organized

by the field of study it is applied to. The Classics department, and by association Greek

Mythology, has literary methods that were created based on the needs of the field. Among these

methods are Scholars in the field of Greek Mythology utilize citations and personal interpretation

approachesan interpretative analysis whichto strengthen their argumentation within theof

scholarly articles by . Citations are helpful to providinge clear, concise evidence and that claims

can be based upon, while personal interpretation forces authors to defend the logic of their

claims. Scholars use tThese devices are used in particular due to the field's lack of ability to

physically test claims, and limited sources of literature to provide evidence. In a world where

everything is accepted only due to scientific or testable ideas, these Greek Mythology articles

break the mold and turn to the importance toward the writer and their thoughts. Commented [MOU1]: I greatly enjoyed your
introduction. The opening is specific enough but not
“overly” specific. You lead the reader quickly to the
At first glance into any Greek Mythology scholarly article, readers may notice the excess topic without overloading her with extra ifnromation.
I condensed the part about citations and analysis
number of citations. is clearly seen; Hhowever, they citations are form an essential pieces part of because it was too much for the introduction. Here,
your goal is to introduce your reader to what you’re
going to talk about but you don’t need to delve into an
evidence for the presented argument and act as the feature that connects the articles to a broader analysis.
Commented [MOU2]: I can guess what you mean
network of scholarship (Nesbit). One type of citation is straight quotations from mythological here but I’m not really sure. Try to revise this part of the
sentence.
texts. These quotes allow the author to express particular lines of text without trying to restate, Commented [MOU3]: I want to give you a huge hug
right now. Great point.
 Brown 2

and most likely muddle, its meaning. Usually a short quotation is given and then followed by

reasoning for why it is relevant to the argument, which creates a concise expression of the

evidence trying to be represented. For example, if a quote from an oracle, a woman who tells

ambiguous prophecies, is being referenced in an article, any change in the wording can

completely change the original meaning. Due to the poetic nature of the literature that is studied,

specific lines provide multiple meanings that cannot be expressed through paraphrasing. These

direct quotations tend to have more weight as evidence since the author’s personal bias cannot

contaminate the evidence. This use of citations is especially important in a field with limited

sources, and where the only evidence is the literature. Subsequently, the argumentation of the

article is improved because their claims are based upon solid, dependable evidence.
On the other hand, one could argue that the weight placed upon one piece of evidence
causes the deduction of larger, more general claims to be misdirected. This drawback is stated by
Commented [MOU4]: I’m not sure about this
sentence. When I was reading it, I felt like you put it
there just to tie it back to the argument. The sentence
does not look like an organic part of the paragraph. I
would cut it. Or, maybe, you want to revise it.

Mrs.[First Name] Faccani, Teaching Assistant?, when asked about the lack of scientific evidence Commented [MOU5]: When you introduce someone
in your paper for the first time, use their first and last
name. After the first mentioning, you need to use only
in Greek Mythology, “The fragmentary nature and partial number of the ancient texts that we his/her last name.
Also, to help your reader, you should introduce your
possess call for caution whenever we want to assume something from one text alone…”(citation) character’s occupation.

Therefore, it is crucial that many pieces must be referenced at once and cross-analyzed so that a

generalization can be made from a collective standpoint. That will act as a consolidated, solid

piece of evidence that can be used in the author’s argument. Whichever way the author chooses,

the trustworthiness of the evidence is sustained and, therefore, the argument’s base is stable

enough to build claims upon.

Sometimes the significance of literature is utilized as evidence just by mentioning the

title. De Luce argues the importance of Roman mythology by stating, “In fact, the three most Commented [MOU6]: Passive voice. Who does the
action here? Scholars tend to rely
recognized/fundamental works because they have
frequently used mythology handbooks-Morford and Lenardon's Classical Mythology, Powell's been peer reviewed and used by other scholars and
proved to be helpful and reliable. (something like this).
 Brown 3

Classical Myth, and Harris and Platzner's Classical Mythology: Images and Insights-do include

chapters on Roman stories” (202). She uses the superior reputation of the books to further her

argument and also transpose that reputation onto her own work. The use of this technique in an

argument heavily rests on the assertion that the reader will know and recognize these titles.

However, due to the fact that the audience of scholarly articles are other scholars familiar with

the lexicon lexis makes this device a succinct way to support the argument. Likewise, the

author’s knowledge and credibility are boosted due to the use of this specialized vocabulary. The

specificity and reputation that the use of lexicon lexis can achieve for an argument is the central

advantage of using this device inside an article.

Often authors in the fieldGreek Mythology scholars rely on previous articles by Commented [MOU7]: These people are also called
“classical scholars”
colleagues to provide needed evidence in the form of facts and interpretations in areas of study

that are not their expertise (Faccani). For example, if archeological evidence can prove that a

myth has truth to it, a scholar discussing that myth will reference the archaeologist's work as

evidence. Due to its literary focus, this is the only way that Greek Mythology gains scientific

evidence for arguments. This interdisciplinary approach in articles among the Classics

department creates an interconnected web of scholars, which is confirmed by Mr. Nesbit, “Most

everybody who is anybody either already has the email addresses they need or can easily get

them.” This dependence on other scholars creates a community that encourages new discoveries, Commented [MOU8]: citation

claims, and articles. More importantly, it removes the reliance on speculation from literary

sources and allows for authors to have testable, scientific facts to bolster their argument.

Colleagues’ articles are also used to state the opposing viewpoint of the argument

presented, and express areas of the author’s argument that seem to be lacking. When presenting Commented [MOU9]: passive voice

the need for her article on the importance of Roman Mythology, De Luce writes, “[other
 Brown 4

scholars] might subscribe to H. J. Rose's attitude when he asserts that ‘Romulus and Remus are

not genuine mythology’” (202). This quote is the beginning of a statement of an opposing

opinion that is presented in a previous paper, and in this way the author’s article is setup to argue

against this claim. Using this technique allows for the opposing viewpoint to be clearly stated

and then addressed by dissecting the particulars mentioned in the quotation. Additionally, the

line between the opposing opinions is clear cut do to the use of a “me vs. him” tactic by naming

the opposition. This is important in a field where there are often many interpretations of a single

point. The argument presented by the author is in turn bolstered by rebutting against the

potential holes in their argument as well as plainly describing what it does not support.

In a field that so heavily rests upon the personal interpretations of literature by the reader,

it is expected that this would translate to the scholarly articles of the field. Be that as it may, in

Greek Mythology articles, “[personal interpretation] is essential. The challenge is to back up that

interpretation with solid argument and evidence” (Nesbit). In this way, the articles produced are

kept objective due to the need for solid evidence to back up the claim. A way that authors get

around this dilemma is to state definitions of lexicon in their own words. For example, De Luce

states, “I understand mythology to be a traditional story that explains that which cannot be

explained in any other way” (202). Hereafter in the article, this is the accepted definition for

mythology, because even though it may be “wrong,” it’s the author’s opinion. By stating

definitions in their own words, the author’s ideas are expressed through the definition, yet the

argument is kept objective in reference to the definition. Therefore, personal definitions can

differ greatly between scholars, yet the author’s argument cannot be challenged since it follows

the logic of the article.

 Brown 5

Some may argue that the use of “I” statements within the articles is evident of a

subjective approach. For example, the use of “I want to urge...” (202) at the start of a paragraph

in De Luce’s article makes it seem like his personal beliefs may get in the way of the evidence.

However, this is often how the claims of the paper are stated, where a claim is inherently

opinionated in nature, rather than the evidence presented. While admittedly it is informal in an

academic article, its selective use and the frequency of personal interpretation in many parts of

Greek Mythology studies begs for its use to be appropriate within the field. These “I” statements

not only illustrate the significance of the work and claims presented to the author, but encourage

the creation of rebuttal articles. This in turn, makes the authors write more competently because

the article’s ultimate failure or success is connected to their beliefs.

With so many interpretive matters within the field of Greek Mythology, some structure is

essential in the organization of the many arguments that are made. Faccani states, “...Scholars

normally would have to side with one line of interpretation when writing their own articles, and

are expected to explain the reasons why they choose one line of interpretation over the other(s)”

(citation). Its use is most evident when myths are analyzed in articles, and the opinion of the

reader causes different conclusions to be drawn about one text. Therefore, the author has to

argue, not only for his/hertheir claim, but for their his/her own interpretation’s standing within

the community of scholars. Effects of this are seen within articles when authors are directly

opposed to one another, “Rose declares that this story is not ‘mythology’; I could not disagree

more” (De Luce, 203). The juxtaposition of the opinion not only forces the argument be to even

more sound, but encourages the continuation of articles in the topic. These constant fights for

relevancy create a safety net disallowing absurd claims to be made without evidence or logic

producing superior work within the field.

 Brown 6

The argumentation techniques used within Greek Mythology articles are specialized to its

unique nature as a literary based field where arguments are dependent on personal interpretation

of the texts studied. With limited sources, citations carry more weight as evidence than other

fields however they must be cross-referenced to make a general statement. A reliance on other

disciplines for scientific evidence causes the style of writing to be highly influenced scholarly

community. Argumentation within the field forces claims to be exceedingly solid, in both

evidence and logic, or be jeopardy of being reviewed harshly. The use of definitions to get

around problems of subjectivity also keeps authors out of jeopardy. Nevertheless, the effective

argumentation using citations, and the influences of opposition has created a vibrant community

that promotes these Greek Mythology articles break the mold of a science based society and turn

to the importance toward an author’s ideas.

9/10

Jenna,

I’m very impressed with your paper. It was a pleasure to read. The argument is clear; the

organization is beautiful. There is a proper balance between evidence and analysis. (There is just

one instance when I felt like you forced a warrant at the end of the paragraph just because you

felt that you had to put it there).

When you revise your paper, you don’t need to make any structural changes. Instead,

focus on sentence structure. You tend to use passive voice which is fine in some instances where

you can’t find an actor. But if you have actors, make them do the action in your sentences.

Further, read through the “How to be Concise” handout (I will send you another one which is

targeted for more advanced students) and try to find places where you can be more concise.
 Brown 7

Works Cited

De Luce, Judith. “Roman Myth.” The Classical World, vol. 98, no. 2, 2005, pp. 202–205.

JSTOR, doi:10.2307/4352931.

Faccani, Ogla. “Re: Questions regarding Greek Myth Scholarly Articles” Received by Jenna

Brown. 9 Feb. 2018. Email Interview.

Nesbit, Dylan. “Re: Questions regarding Greek Myth Scholarly Articles” Received by Jenna

Brown. 13 Feb. 2018. Email Interview.