Mythology paper

Answer one of the forthcoming scrutinys. Please confer the guidelines & grading draft beneath. 1) Crime & Punishment: We enjoy seen in our decipherings frequent irrelative ins of gods and goddesses punishing humans for hybris and impetuous manner (e.g., Lycaon, Arachne, Hippolytus, Pentheus, etc.). Compare and contrariety two of these ins from the post-Odyssey readings (i.e., anything from Homeric Hymns, Ovid, or Euripides). For each in you should observe the essence of the human’s offense and the methods and motives of the god’s/goddess’ amercement, as courteous as any other apt issues you meet sensational (e.g., other victims, reactions from other gods or humans, etc.). Be infallible to use at lowest 2-3 favoring, elaborate extractual ins for each solicitation of celestial amercement.  2)  Bringing Back the Olympians? Though the Greek and Roman gods may appear unfamiliar, dramatic, and at times lifeless unyielding to new-fangled audiences, they were also the objects of pious reverence for frequent persons for centuries. Using at lowest 4 favoring, elaborate ins from the extracts, explore how the Olympian Gods susceptibility perhaps fit in the new-fangled universe? Can you believe of any reasons why someone today susceptibility meet beliefs in such gods appealing? What do you believe would be the biggest drawbacks / turn-offs that would obviate new-fangled collection from accepting them? (NOTE: I am not hard to defy anyone’s pious convictions, nor do I expect/want anyone to ACTUALLY try converting others, BUT I believe it’s sensational to believe encircling why the Greeks and Romans reverenceed these gods for as crave as they did – intermittently, convergence on our extracts, do not collect an close or thoroughgoinggoing recital of your own pious beliefs) Guidelines a) Don’t do beyond elaboration for these journals. They are intended so that I can see that you’ve decipher the extracts and design encircling them; I apprehend that most of you aren’t legend experts and that’s not how I gain action them (see beneath) b) Address favoringally the scrutiny(s) substance asked. The prompts are intentionally left a bit comprehensive, but… c) Don’t try to produce a comprehensive/exhaustive reply. Convergence on an intention or subtopic you meet sensational and explore it delay purpose (see beneath). For in, scrutiny 1 overhead asks you encircling Odysseus’ enemies – you don’t demand to stir full uncompounded enemy; instead convergence on a few that you can explore in purpose. d) Don’t lawful incorporate the relation. Instead, amplify an rendering inveterate on your own designs and deciphering, and which you patronage delay…                                                                                       e) You should adduce up at lowest 4 specific details/examples from the deciphering that patronage your purpose(s) f) You don’t demand to allege the extract or uniform adduce suitable locations (though citing can be beneficial for me). By “favoring in/detail”, I lawful average a apparent allusion to colossus that happens in the extract that isn’t comprehensive or open. E.g., “Zeus turns Lycaon into a wolf” = comprehensive, NOT SPECIFIC; “Zeus reachs Lycaon into an lewd that retains his ruthless bloodlust and loose eyes.” = favoring g)The adaptation doesn’t enjoy to be precise but you should transcribe in exhaustive sentences that are decipherily apprehendable to an beyond decipherer.     h) While there is no set elongation for these entries, 250-450 words should be competent to reach your point)