In "Animism and the Alphabet , when speaking of oral culture and the literate culture, Abram specifically use the example of Greece. When the alphabet was first introduced to Greece, it faced remarkable resistance from the public since the oral culture was so popular. Greeks were used to the oral culture. They told stories from one generation to another, from one time to another. "Since they were not written down, they were never wholly fixed, but would shift incrementally with each telling to fit the circumstances or need s of a particular audience, gradually incorporating new practical knowledge while letting that which was obsolete fall away  (Abram 36). Thus, these stories would always follow the trend, in other words, they were recreated any time. This is the oral culture. The reason why Greek people defended the oral culture from the alphabet, which is the tool of literate culture, is they appreciated oral culture. Compared to oral culture, the unmovable nature of literate culture would be unacceptable for Greek people who were already used to the metamorphic nature of oral culture. "in a culture as thoroughly and complexly oral as Greek culture in this period, the alphabet could take root only by allying itself, at first, with the oral tradition  (Abram 36). This means that in order to introduce the alphabet successfully, the alphabet had to rely on oral culture to make its first step in Greece. The research Abram cited in his essay, which was undertaken by the Harvard classicist Milman Parry and his assistant Albert Lord, has indicated the oral nature of the Homeric epics, "the existence of certain stock phrases---such as "the wine-dark sea,  "there spoke clever Odysseus,  or "when Dawn spread out her fingertips of rose ---that are continually repeated throughout the poems  (37). Despite of the wide use of oral culture, the alphabet finally became the trend: with the development of culture, people felt the need to use a solid means to write things down, especially for an area like science. Oral culture would never be the option, as Abram states, "Oral cultures, however, lacking the fixed and permanent record that we have come to count on, can preserve verbal knowledge only by constantly repeating it  (37). At a future perspective, Greek people cannot only rely on oral culture to develop their country. For a culture only exists in oral, ordinary people can never comprehend multi-subjects knowledge. This is not the way a culture can thrive. From the example of oral culture's decline in Greece, readers can easily tell the difference between oral culture and literate culture. In Abram's mind, as he repeats several times in the essay:  Moreover, the oral techniques for preserving and transmitting knowledge, and the sensorial habits associated with those techniques, were, as we shall see, largely incompatible with the sensorial patte