One way to interpret the gods in Greek myths is to see them as personifications of forces in nature like the sea or lighting, or of abstract concepts like wisdom or forethought. Yet Baldwin says this kind of reading is "an error"that takes the charm out of those tales and reduces their "precious gold into utilitarian iron". Why might Baldwin believe this?What happens ti characterization or other literary elements in the story if we read the gods as personification instead of literally

The approach that Baldwin suggests is that of seeing the gods not as personifications of natural elements, but as gods themselves. Baldwin believes this approach to be more charming and fairer to the stories.

The main reason why Baldwin argues this is that he believes this is what the Greek people intended when telling the stories. By arguing the opposite, we are putting our own ideologies and points of view on them, instead of appreciating things as they described them. We also attempt to give the myths a useful and practical meaning (which he describes as utilitarian) instead of appreciating the spiritual and aesthetic elements of the story.

the reason that neiterkob's daughter most likely tell the beginnings of the maasai is : to explain the readers the origin of maasai culture

with this explanation, the reader will grasp a better concept about it and not lost in the middle of reading.

                                            (hope this )