Graves's theories and etymologies are rejected by most classical scholars. Graves argued in response that classical scholars lack "the poetic capacity to forensically examine mythology".
Graves's retellings have been widely praised as imaginative and poetic, but the scholarship behind his hypotheses and conclusions is generally criticised as idiosyncratic and untenable.
The Greek Myths has been heavily criticised both during and after the lifetime of the author. Critics have deprecated Graves's personal interpretations, which are, in the words of one of them, "either the greatest single contribution that has ever been made to the interpretation of Greek myth or else a farrago of cranky nonsense; I fear that it would be impossible to find any classical scholar who would agree with the former diagnosis". Graves's etymologies have been questioned, and his largely intuitive division between "true myth" and other sorts of story has been viewed as arbitrary, taking myths out of the context in which we now find them. The basic assumption that explaining mythology requires any "general hypothesis", whether Graves's or some other, has also been disputed. The work has been called a compendium of misinterpretations. Sibylle Ihm refers to Graves's "creative mishandling of the Greek myths."
H. J. Rose, agreeing with several of the above critics, questions the scholarship of the retellings. Graves presents The Greek Myths as an updating of William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (originally published 1844), which Graves calls "the standard work in English", never brought up to date; Rose is dismayed to find no sign that Graves had heard of the Oxford Classical Dictionary or any of the "various compendia of mythology, written in, or translated into, our tongue since 1844". Rose finds many omissions and some clear errors, most seriously Graves's ascribing to Sophocles the argument of his Ajax; this evaluation has been repeated by other critics since.
俗语赞美那些书读多了书生，谓之：读书破万卷。
这里的“破”字, 指的是“超越”的意思，不是說把万卷书都给读破烂了的样子或状态。
然而读书破万卷，不等于就有了相应的学识或见识。更何况这世间还会有什么书，能使人将其读得，连书皮都不复存在了的？如此这般反复阅读以致把书翻烂，我们不得不会有个疑问：此般读书人，恐怕理解能力有问题吧？
再说，读书人愛书，也就懂得如何爱护书籍。一本书读得像是落地秋叶般地皱巴巴以致于近乎散架没了封皮封底，像把干咸菜，这能叫读书人的藏书吗？
这样的书，世間也许会有；但恐怕有的是辗转不断的流通，并经过不懂得如何爱惜书籍的所谓读书人手底，才会把书搞得像把干咸菜吧？
。。。就本坛某些朋友们把书读破烂的发言，有感。
“破”字，明兄解释的很正确，确实是“超越，超过”之意，有的人也理解为“尽，过”，其实是一个意思。
“读书破万卷，下笔如有神”出自杜甫之诗《奉赠韦左丞丈二十二韵》，杜甫还有诗《白帝楼》：“腊破思端绮，春归待一金。”《绝句》：“二月已破三月来，渐老逢春能几回？”这里的“破”都是“过，尽”的意思。
Graves's theories and etymologies are rejected by most classical scholars. Graves argued in response that classical scholars lack "the poetic capacity to forensically examine mythology".
Graves's retellings have been widely praised as imaginative and poetic, but the scholarship behind his hypotheses and conclusions is generally criticised as idiosyncratic and untenable.
The Greek Myths has been heavily criticised both during and after the lifetime of the author. Critics have deprecated Graves's personal interpretations, which are, in the words of one of them, "either the greatest single contribution that has ever been made to the interpretation of Greek myth or else a farrago of cranky nonsense; I fear that it would be impossible to find any classical scholar who would agree with the former diagnosis". Graves's etymologies have been questioned, and his largely intuitive division between "true myth" and other sorts of story has been viewed as arbitrary, taking myths out of the context in which we now find them. The basic assumption that explaining mythology requires any "general hypothesis", whether Graves's or some other, has also been disputed. The work has been called a compendium of misinterpretations. Sibylle Ihm refers to Graves's "creative mishandling of the Greek myths."
H. J. Rose, agreeing with several of the above critics, questions the scholarship of the retellings. Graves presents The Greek Myths as an updating of William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (originally published 1844), which Graves calls "the standard work in English", never brought up to date; Rose is dismayed to find no sign that Graves had heard of the Oxford Classical Dictionary or any of the "various compendia of mythology, written in, or translated into, our tongue since 1844". Rose finds many omissions and some clear errors, most seriously Graves's ascribing to Sophocles the argument of his Ajax; this evaluation has been repeated by other critics since.
金庸小说我仅读过这一本，琼瑶小说一本没读。