You will:

(1) first briefly indicate at least two parts of the myth which might be appealing for this theory

(2) explain how those parts of the myth interact with the theory — ie. why the theory would find them interesting (in the course of doing so, you should explain and make it clear that you understand the basics of the theory).

(3) You will then, creatively, attempt to describe how the theory would give greater meaning to the myth – ie. How the theory would explain what the myth ‘means’ and/or how it connects to similar myths. We will be grading on creativity and ability to bring in information from the book and from lectures. Thus, a good response will not simply describe how the theory would describe myth in general but will make an effort to describe how the theory would explain the myth in this particular case. Remember that a theory only has to explain PARTS of the myth — it doesn’t have to cover every single aspect. If you think that the myth explains a ritual or echoes a social/political situation, don’t be afraid to imagine what those rituals/situations might look like. Being wrong won’t count against you (although, in both of these cases you should have actual rituals and actual socio-political information to relate it to).

(4) Make at least TWO connections which are not explicitly mentioned in the myth – that is, you should use comparisons to other myths and stories which we have analyzed, cultural facts which you know about Greece, actual rituals, or (if you are inclined) creative statements about what you think is true of the human condition.

(5) Finally, you should describe TWO elements in the story that you believe that your chosen theory would have difficulty explaining and why.

Your rubric is the following:

Part 1 — Theory:

2 pts – Indicated an appropriate area (or areas) from the myth which pertains to that theory’s purview (no explanation necessary here)

2 pts — Adequately explained how the section chosen pertains to the theory (this is where they prove that they know what the basics of the theory are)

+1 (Bonus point if they were able to identify and explain more than a single area of the myth)

Part 2 — Analysis

2 pts — Set forth any reasonable explanation of two ways in which the theory would try to explain the myth (beyond repeating information from part 1)

2 pts –Their answer EITHER made TWO solid and explained links to some other part of the course (specifically compared it to another myth we have read, identified some element of Greek culture or history, identified a specific ritual which seems similar) OR showed commendable creativity, knowledge, or insight in constructing their answer (even if does not refer to something that actually exists).

+1 Bonus point if they set out multiple explanations (beyond two) or really go above and beyond

Part 3 — Counterpoint

1 pt — Successfully identified two parts of the myth which is not easily explained by their theory (no explanation)

1 pt — Explained (even very briefly) WHY this causes difficulty for the theory