Robert Graves wrote the widely published book Greek Myths.
I have heard that classicists dispute that his account of the myths is valid1, in the sense that either:
Graves' editing, translation and collation of the source texts lacks fidelity to those texts
His proposals of the underlying mytho...
For perspective on Graves, when I was at the academy, my teachers didn't assign him, but they certainly didn't discourage reading him, and generally found him interesting.
There is definitely a Riordan reprint of the Greek Myths, which may be taken as an indicator of how influential he is in the literary approach to mythology
What Gaiman has done with his Norse Myths strikes me as quite similar to what Graves did with his Greek myths: faithfully retell the stories in a more connected form.
Graves was combining different sources for the narratives that comprise each chapter of Greek Myths. Gaiman is attenuating that into novelistic form.
It seems to me that this is more possible with the Norse Myths, as you have a handful of sources and manageable number of characters, unlike the Classical canon, where you have a massive number of sources over at least a thousand years, in two cultures (Greek and Roman) and an unmanageable number of characters.
