My Favorite Character

For this blog, I had to do a bit of digging...literally, through the 700+ pages of our Saga book, because I've honestly forgotten a lot of the characters from the beginning of the semester. Egil, Eirik, Leif, Freydis, and of course Ref, are still at the forefront of my mind, but I thought I remembered some interesting ones back in the day. So, for my final blog I thought I'd remind you all about Sarcastic Halli.

The Tale of Sarcastic Halli was memorable to me not only because the title of the Saga helps me remember the gist of the story, but because the character was one I could easily relate to. Especially in the beginning of my immersion into the Viking society, identifying with a character whose tale is told in a setting so different to modern day (in many ways, I realize now there are a good handful of similiarities) made me care more about what that character had to say.

This may seem a little crude, but one of the reasons I might have liked this character more than others is because of his language. I can't remember another saga or character that uses more commonly-known swear words in his/her tale! Between dropping the f-bomb on the second page, and telling the King he "doesn't give a damn" about his policy of clearning everyone's food when he himself is finnished cracked me up! I mean, in the college-realm we hear people cussing up a storm, but not so often in the academic setting. It was refreshing and humorous to me to come upon this so early and in such strong context in the sagas.

Then, to top it all off, his "riddle" to mock his poetic opponent, Thjodolf, sealed Halli as my favorite character. He claims that he should be more favorable in the eyes of the kind because Thjodolf is such a brute that he killed and ATE his father's killer. But, it turns out that his father was inadvertently killed by a pig that Thjodolf and his family later ate for dinner.

Halli's cleverness, sarcastic take on life, and even his primal and vulgar outbursts never ceased to amuse me. In fact, I think Halli might fall closley in comparison to a modern day frat guy, and that likliness had me chuckling at all of his antics, imagining them in the light of today's society.

The Saga of Ref the Sly

I really liked the character Ref in this saga. I was surprised at the beginning to see a main character described as being "unuseful [and] loll[ing] underfoot," and his mother certainly cemented the Nordic dissaproval of idleness when she tells him she wishes he were never born and she would have rather had a daughter.

My favorite part about Ref is that every murder he commits is done for a solid reason, and his tactics overall seem honerable for the standards of the day. The only questionable part that I saw was that he killed the five men during the evening (we have previously heard in Egil Saga that killing during the night was murder, but killing during the day was revenge).

I think the fact that he killed for good reasons and with logic in mind was a big part of the reason his killings were so often praised thereafter. His mother was only proud of him when he avenged her stolen hay supply, and in the end King Svein calls his devious and clever actions "valient and magananimous," even though he killed his own men. It was his cunning disguises and alias',tricky stategies with the boats, and clever craftsmenship in creation and protection of his buildings that added glory to his victories.

The sucession of names he undergoes throughout the story amused me, and I was surprised to see him referred to as Ref the Gay, meaning homosexual, because I was unaware that gay was ever a synonym for homosexual that early in history. The slander the saga refers to reminded me a lot of high school gossip, espeically because it assaulted his sexuality and masculinity.

Vinland Sagas

I'm not going to put much up here becacuse I have a lot to say in class tomorrow and a lot of work to do on my presentation still, but I will say that I enjoyed reading these for once. I don't konw if it was because the stories were at least a bit familiar (I feel like we at least heard about Leif Eiriksson every Columbus day in grade school), or because the characters were FINALLY approaching lands I recognized. My favorite part about these stories is that there is historical evidence to back up parts of them, so I can wonder less about whether or not any of it really happened. Also, the comparison of the two tomorrow should be intriuging, because there are some significant differences...and not just in who spotted what first. Hope you all liked the reading as much as I did!

Egil Saga Round Two

Looking at Egil Saga as a whole, there were many elements that surprised me because they were very different from other sagas we're read before. I know Egil saga is thought by many to be the most important or the most typical of the sagas, so it was even more confusing to me why there are so many fundamental differences between this saga and pretty much all of the others.

For instance,

1.Because much of the saga takes place in Norway, we are not exposed to the Althing. Instead, the readers here of the Gula Assembly and laws being interpreted by and cases presented to Kings.

2. Direct reference to the terms "viking," and direct mention of plundering without stating reason or the line of revenge being taken.

3. Simple poetry in place of flowery and more eloquent verses

4. Very powerful woman figure, Gunnhild. First mention of "Queen," with a direct influence over the King's decision. On pg. 113 a ruling is referred to in the context of "[King Eirik] and Gunnhild decided." She speaks with authority, compared to women we've seen in other saga's implementing their power through withholding sex or other methods of more discret coersion of their husbands.

Egi's wide array of traits also struck me as interesting througout the saga. At times, he apears as ruthless as a berserk, and then at other times he is a family man. He is brutal, but loyally abides by the cultural traditions and regulations of the time regarding honor. He forms fierces alliances, where anyone who wrongs his friends, family, or the family of his friends, experience the brute of his force and the wrath of his merciless strength. When he (or one ofhis alliances) is wronged, or believed he has been wronged, though, he wastes no time in punishing the offender in the most vulgar way acceptable at the time. This is a trait he portrays from childhood into adulthood. When his brother refuses to let him accompany him when he is younger, he ruins his ships. When he is older and believes Kings (such as Erik) or King's men have wronged him, he is quick to kill them all. He even goes to the length of killing an entire farm's herd of cattle because the farm owner had betrayed or wronged him in some way. He is also very concerned throughout the saga in gathering what possesions he believes are rightfully his. He goes to great lengths to accquire every property and goods that befall him according to line and custom.

He carries out both acts of kindness and aggression through utilizing his force and brutality. When he is engaged in a fight, he is merciless (a trait he perhaps inherited from Skalligrim). His sence of right and wrong was weird to me because it seemed so twisted. He had no problem stealing booty from innocent towns, but he did have a problem stealing it in the secrecy of night without announcing his presence. Of course, announcing his presence would lead to having to kill them all in order to escape with the booty, but Egil's sence of honor and dignity require that acts such as plunder not be carried out in secrecy like a coward, so he "goes back to the farm and lets the people know what has happened," (74) by burning down their houses and "kill[ing] them in the doorway and just outside" (74) as they ran out and tried to escape.

As he grows older, this odd sense of logic continues. For example, when he lands in a terratory King Erik has accquired, instead of leaving or trying to hide out until it is possible to sail out in the morning, his honour requires that he present himself to the King and not hide in the shadows as a coward. Even though he knows the King hates him for killing his brother, Egil figures it is better to go and chance the likelihood of King Erik having him murdered than avoid the confrontation and therefore dishonor himself for acting un-manly. This twisted sense of logic really stood out to me throughout the saga. We have seen such thoughts in other sagas, but not to the extent that the character really risks his life unnecessarily like that just due to a way of thinking.

But as he grows older, I believe he also grows wiser. He begins to take his problems to the legal system in that country, he argues and talks his way in and out of a variety of situations, and he uses his poetry and flattery to save him in place of violence in the case of his imprisonment under King Erik's rule. He has learned a better way to accomplish his ever present goal: gaining what is rightfully his, wherever it may be. Even though the result of his legal consultations often end in him challenging his oponent to a duel, at least he is doing things formally and according to rules in stead of ambushing people as he did as a child.

Another interesting component of Egil's character is his displays of emotion. There are several occurances when it is noted he is so upset he refuses to speak, and when his son is killed he retires to his room alone for 3 days. He composes a poem that speaks of "heavy sobbing" (152), a highly unusual event to be recorded in a saga. His display of emotion makes him a more dynamic character, tearing him away from the stereotypical bloodthirsty brute, and making the readers sympathize with him, for they can finally see a human-being side to him. Also, the fact that the saga clearly states that Egil causes no drama or conflict while in Iceland shows his respect for the land his family lives in, and also shows that he is capable of existing peacefully.

Ultimatley, I found Egil to be such a complex and interesting character, that he made the read fun because it was never easy to predict his actions or reactions, or sometimes even what he was thinking.

Egil Saga #1

First off I just have to say that it took quite a bit of reading to get to the point where Egil is actually born. That said, I did find his previous generations of family quite interesting. Kveldulf is my favorite; he embodies a very no-nonsense elder that has put in his time amusing the current King and is now playing the "seniority" card to get out of such troubles. His blatent disregard for King Harold both surprised and impressed me. I also liked this character because he was very wise. He had frequent intuitions, and they were often very true. He seemed very patiently stubborn, and reasonable despite the King's frequent request of his presence in court.

Thorolf seemed at first to me the very opposite of his father. They seemed to portray the classic child to parent relationship, where Thorolf goes off and does his own thing, joining the King's court even though his father is sure the King will bring bad news to his family in the end. Thorolf seems very eager to please. In contrast to Kveldulf's self interest and common sense, Thorolf accepts the King's requests almost without thought. He provides very well for all his man and I found myself sympathizing with him througout.

Some of the traits Egil displays are brute strength, obviously deemed a very worthy and important aspect in Nordic characterization and social dominance. His strength is impressed upon the reader in several anecdotes when he is first introduced. Other noteworthy traits are his stubbornness and jealousy. I was quite surprised he wasn't reprimanded when he disobeyed his father's word and rode to the dinner on his own. Overall, I was very surprised when many little acts of disobedience such as this were overlooked in this text.

Prologue to Prose Edda

I thought, as I'm sure everyone noted, that it was very interesting that the history of creation begins with a retelling of the Christian Genesis. When the prolouge continued to the story of Noah's Ark I began to wonder what the Icelanders pre-Christianity truely thought about creation, because this was too obvious of a post-Christian influence.

It was intruiguing to see where their telling strays from the Christian scripture, and I believe that is when the text says "Thus it happened that they lost the name of God; and throughout the wideness of the world the man was not found who could distinguish in aught the trace of his Creator. But not the less did God bestow upon them the gifts of the earth: wealth and happiness, for their enjoyment in the world." To me, this was a clearly a way that Christian converters could explain away the pagan tendencies of the Icelanders from the ancient time of Noah, to the conversion back to "God" in 1000.

I liked that this is the second time that we've seen the Nordic Gods being born as humans, and eventually ascending into their power and worship because they were so great. Although this mirrors the thinking of Jesus Christ, there are notable differences. Thor is described as being great for, who would have guessed, beging good looking and being able to kill the most powerful forces around. The story of his travels reminded me of the epic heroes from Greek mythology. Another link to the Greeks was the location of many of the characters discussed in the Prolouge, Troy--the scene of the battle of Troy from Greek mythology. I'm interested in the link between the two? How often did these cultures mesh back in ancient times, or did their history and cultural stories just blend together centuries after, when they were finally being recorded?

Introduction to Norse Mythology

The aspect I most appreciated in the Introduction to Norse Mythology was the inclusion of many details that cleared up or clarified the several processes and events most commonly referenced in the sagas we've been reading. For example, I had no idea that every free man was required to be a thingman to a Godi (pg 6). I had assumed that thingman-ship was voluntary and loyalties were only given to those Godi's with whom you had decent relationships. I also found it very interesting that 1/3 of the laws was receited annually at the Althing by one person, who, even though he was the holder of some of the most important information to Norse society, was described as having little or no real power. The concept that there were actual designated "moving days," due to the importance and reliance on household structure also intrigued me. I had never really considered the drastic change a change in household might have on that set group of people's availibility of information, but obviously the people of that time had.

Around the middle of the introduction I had a sort of "Aha!" moment, when the author described the difficulty and regulations related to scaldic poetry, which I understood to be the kind used to impress kings in the sagas. The fact that it said training and intensive study would be required just to understand it as a member of the auidience baffled me. I guess I had always questioned why poetry was held in SUCH esteem and rewarded so extensivley, but if it really was this difficult to master than "good poets" obviously worked hard at their skill. And it now makes sense to me that kings would reward people who honored them with such a skill, because it seems as if their only motivation to become well versed in poetry is to impress kings and such.

I was confused, however, with Snorri's depiction of Odin. In the sagas, the Nordic people thought of Odin as a God, and I guess I assumed they therefore believed him to be immortal. I'd been so used to reading the sagas and experiencing them almost from the perspective of a Norseman at the time, so I blindly accepted the existence of Odin as a God. But the story in the introduction about Odin describes his death, and personifies him as a great person, but not necessarily as a God. In fact, it seems that Snorri goes to great length to include him as a part of history and NOT an aspect of religion. Is this just Snorri enforcing Christian ideals and attempting to explain away the presence of Odin in the sagas, or what is going on here? Maybe I just need to get some sleep, I could have missed out on something important....

As far as the other sections of the book, the one I picked to read was on Freya. She interested me because I remember some other sagas or readings we did referenced her as a powerful female character. Indeed, she does seem to hold power, but it is also interesting how she is portrayed as a whore. She reminded me almost as the Goddess Aphrodite, and I found her character and the stories of her being called out amusing.

Last but not least, the assigned section of the book that I'll comment on is Midgard serpent. I just liked how similiar Midgard serpent was to the Christian story of the Devil posing as a serpent to trick Adam and Eve. Although this book distinguishies the seperent as seperate from "Hel" or the Norse version of the Devil, the concept is still there and this just shows how so many of the cultures and religions of the past are based upon the same principles, and that our beliefs are linked together more closesly than we may know to pagan religions in far away lands

The Saga of the Confederates

The first noticable difference came to be at the very beginning of the saga. After spending my night writing my paper on the characterization (or lack thereof) of the main characters found in the typical saga, I noticed right away that the saga of the Confederates gives more information upfront than any saga before its time. Thorgerd was characterized as "a woman of good family and very strong character," probably the first mention of a female that doesn't begin with (and consist almost only of) a description of beauty. The first paragraph also mentioned the lack of affection Odd recieved, which is an unusual insight for the saga era.

I also noticed that dialouge increased in volume, and also that what the characters say seem to be wordier, whereas before their statements were very blunt and to the point. (A side note, on pg 467 Ospak says "It's like this, Odd..." I thought that phrase was a biiiiit modern sounding for ancient Icelandic speak...)

Speaking of modern, it appeared to me that Svala owned her own farm? I wasn't aware that this was a priviledge women were capable of in that time, so I found that interesting. Also, the interaction and "courting" between Svala and Odd had more detail and usually found in such circumstances.

It was also interesting to hear a report of finding Ospak's body the next season, instead of bluntly ending his part in the saga as soon as he leaves the community.

Hrafnkel Frey's Godi

The first difference I noticed in this saga verses the others, is the constant referel to actual quoted social understandings and bylaws. In other sagas, these things are implied, or if they are referred to it is not done in quote so formal a manner, ie "he who gives warning is not at fault" (440) and "it's a wise man who knows himself" (443).

This saga also differed, as I noticed many have already commented, based on the fact that there is much more detailed information regarding the law and procedures of the time. The Day of Summons, the importance of finding cheiftains, and the Law Rock, are all very specific and detail-oriented tidbits of the story that other sagas often brushed over with a simple phrase, such as, "and they they went to the Althing and it was settled." I do wonder how the ammount of detail (such as the number of days [14] after Weapon Taking that a court date is to take place) remained so accurate over the years until this tale was recorded, or if these procedure details were based off of similiar proceedings taking place at the time when it was recorded.

I also found it sort of miraculous that they were able to hold a court so similar to the justice system that we practice today. The most significant difference is the importance of a crowd for either side.

Another difference I noticed was brief insights into the characters' thinking, such as Sam's remark that "he would rather choose to live, but thought that both alternatives were hard." It is rare that we are given information on the direct thoughts of characters, so it was nice to see information on his decision process.

Overall, I liked that each event that progressed in this story was explained according to common law or reasoning, so that really, the characters could not argue with the course of events and the outcomes because the offender or the starter of the action had premeditated his reasoning and built a sort of case against the other. It made for a neat, and tidy chain of events.

Hovamol

Okay, I am not into poetry. Although this poem wasn't too flowery, I am just not a big fan of poetry so this wasn't a fun reading for me. However, I did notice a few things of interest:

1) The contradiction between the welcoming atmosphere and immidiate care and "welcoming speech" given to a stranger who wanders into a gathering in the darkness of night seen here,

"Fire he needs who with frozen knees
Has come from the cold without;
Food and clothes must the farer have,
The man from the mountains come.

Water and towels and welcoming speech
Should he find who comes, to the feast;
If renown he would get, and again be greeted,
Wisely and well must he act."

and the warning and implicit need for protection from dangerous strangers or strange situations in the verse,

"For never he knows When the need for a spear
Shall arise on the distant road."

Why is it that this culture focuses SO much on accepting and meeting strangers (such as traveling strangers to a new kingdom, etc) with such openness and trust? It just seems so weird when paired with the attitude of vengence and manslaughter also embedded within the society's guidelines. Especially in comparision to this day and age where a stranger would more probably be met with a slammed door in the face or a threat to bodily harm instead of immediate acceptance if they appeared in the middle of the night at one of your family gatherings.

2) The appearance of several of the Christian "Seven Deadly Sins" throughout the poem. The first appears in #20 & #21, where the reference to both Guilt and Gluttoney is made with the verses,
" The greedy man, if his mind be vague,
Will eat till sick he is;The vulgar man, when among the wise,
To scorn by his belly is brought.

The herds know well when home they shall fare,
And then from the grass they go;
But the foolish man his belly's measure
Shall never know aright."

Then later, Pride,

"his pride will wax, but his wisdom never,
Straight forward he fares in conceit"

Then towards the end, Lust,

"Seek never to win the wife of another,
Or long for her secret love"

This last stanza also seemed to be an alternate translation to the Christian commandment "thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife."

It was intriuging to me to see such ancient interpretations of modern Christian belief, and although they seemed to put a much much stronger focus on Wisdom (stanzas #8-11, 22-27, 54-5 just to name a few), there are so many parallels between the relgious standards of the two time periods I can almost invision living back then.

Response to Njal's Saga & Gisli Sursson's Saga

In Njal's Saga there was one specific detail I found interesting, and that was the use of the Christian crucifix as a weapon. When it was first mentioned, "Thangbrand defended himself with a crucifix instead of a sheild, but even so he managed to defreat Thorkel and kill him," I thought it could have been meant more symbolically. Like, with Christ on his side (represented by the crucifix), he was able to defeat Thorkel without a weapon. But the crufix is mentioned again, when Thangbrand, "struck him on the arm with a crucifix and, miraculously, the sword dropped from the brserk's grasp." Here they made it quite obvious that the physical crucifix was being used to do physical harm to an opponent. I tried to look up other uses of crucifix as a weapon and my search came up with only the use of a cross against Count Dracula. This new use of a common Christian symbol stuck me as a fitting combination of the violent, battle-centered ideals of the Icelandic Vikings with the pacifist and peaceful Christian ideals they were beginning to adopt.

Then, in Gisli Sursson's Saga, I decided to focus on the frequent mention of gift giving in the Icelandic society. In the past few stories, especially the Tale of Audun from the West Fjords, there has been a focus on the gifts given and recieved by main characters. In Gisli Sursson's Saga, Gisli and Vestein "give gifts worth more than the price of their share" [508], when they buy a portion of Beard-Bjalfi's ship. Immediatley after, it is noted that they quickly became friends with Bjalfi and they all "gave each other gifts" [508]. Vestein brings bags of gifts for his sister and Gisli, but when Gisli in turn trys to share his gifts with Thorkel, he responds with "I cannot see how they will be repaid" [515]. This led me to wonder if the gifts, which I had previously attributed to a value of generosity within Icelandic society, were more similar to a system of giving and taking. When Gisli makes the statement that "a gift always looks to be repaid," [520] it becamse clear to me: gifts were given with an understanding that the reciever is now in a sort of debt to the giver. It made me reconsider my percerption of the Icelanders. This is a very clever system I think, because it makes them appear very generous, while knowing that because of the understanding they have with one another, they will be repaid later on (and probably with interest...almost like Icelandic banking and loans!).

Response to The Saga of Gunnlaug Sperent-Tongue

I was surprised to find, at the beginning of this saga, an introduction by a narrator--the very element we found missing in our discussions last class. It certainly helped me to have someone give me the outline of the story upfront and highlight the important events to note and the moral significance the story attempts to portray.

When I began the actual saga, I had to ask, how many Thorsteins are we going to meet in the course of this book?! There appears to be multiple Thorsteins in every saga. Another thing I found interesting at the beginning of the tale was that they made note that Thorstein's wife Jofrid was only 18 when he married her, yet she was already a widow with a child. I guess this make sense seeing as back in those days they married early. I liked this little glimpse into the ways of their people, because sometimes I felt in the last stories that they acted so much like us their agespan and the time and setting of major events in their lives would mirror ours as well. Apparently not.

Reading Response 2

Even though I was forewarned by the introduction about some of the various topics and issues addressed in these first "tales," I was still surprised by the intesity with which the Vikings valued honor. To the point where Thorstein Staff-struck's father tells him he, "would rather loose you [Thorstein], than have a coward for a son." I was also surprised at the longevity when dealing with personal matters. Several times throughout the readings, "all remained quiet until Yule," or "until the next fall." Problems were dealt with almost leisurly, as though everyone knew no one was going to flee or go anywhere soon.

Another surprising part of the Thorstein tale for me was the moral I got out of the story. At one point towards the end, Throstein tells Bjarni, "everyone is eager to live through a struggle if he has the power to." At first, I was confused about whether or not Thorstein was being "cowardly" under Icelandic standards. Especially when he tells Bjarni, "I will not strike eagerly." I was under the impression that his father wanted him to fight Bjarni with all this strength, or otherwise be considered a coward. I didn't think that being "eager to live through a struggle" was necessarily an opinion the Icelandic society held at this point and time, because all the occurances up until this point had been solved with a simple murder (well, as simple as murder can be). After Bjarni dies, "no man was thought to be equal in integrety and bravery [to Thorstein]," presumably for surviving through battle and spending the remainder of Bjarni's life by his side.

The overall moral I got out of this tale is that it takes more courage not to kill, than to solve issues with a blatent slaughtery. I thought this was somewhat deep or progressive thinking for the time in which these tales took place, and it interested me to see how this line of thinking progressed over time.

Test Post

This is my test post