One way to interpret the gods in Greek myths is to see them as personifications of forces in

nature like the sea or lightning, or of abstract concepts like wisdom or forethought. Yet

Baldwin says this kind of reading is "an error" that takes the charm out of these tales and

reduces their "precious gold into utilitarian iron." Why might Baldwin believe this? What

happens to characterization or other literary elements in the story if we read the gods as

personifications instead of literally?

If we take out the narrative functions, characterization and poetic elements from the Greek myths, leaving them only with the functional explanations and rational reading, we lose all the poetic and artistic value, stying with scientific facts.

We can recognize that, at the core, the function of the myths were explanations of the natural events and their rationalization, but we should still leave the literal value that gives them life. This poetic shape of the myths is what gives them artistic beauty and value, imaginative quality, and charm, making them, even today, an important part of literal work and analysis.