Last saga response

I know we just commented on him in the last class, but I really enjoyed reading about Ref the Sly. I thought he was a really interesting character because he was portrayed so negatively in the beginning, but ended up as the saga's hero in the end. He stands out to me because of his intellectual abilities. Although some of his accomplishments were potentially fabricated by the author, I still found him to be impressive as he built the boat from scratch, sailed all the way to America with his family, and then created this massive and complicated fortress that ended up saving his life. He seemed to always be calculating not only his own moves, but those of others as well and accounting for them in his actions. He also didn't really fool around with poetry, which I found a bit refreshing as a reader and made him seem more straightforward. Perhaps we would have gotten more insight into his character with poetry, however, since his whole personality seemed a little bit undeveloped.
Ultimately, after reading all the sagas, I think perhaps if one could combine the wit of Ref and the brawn of Egil, they would be left with the ultimate saga hero: a smart, cunning character who calculates his moves carefully and is good on the intellectual decisions, as well as one who knows when to fight with a high sense of compensation, loyalty, and honor, and can always win in a physical challenge.

The Saga of Ref the Sly

While the preface to this saga states that there really isn’t an “explicit message” to the saga of Ref the Sly, I disagree a little. I think that in previous sagas we were able to catch up on things that the Vikings found important, like family honor, getting revenge/compensation, being a good warrior but also having an intellectual, poetic side, being handsome, and later on in the sagas we’ve most recently read, the virtue of cunning. I think that this saga’s purpose is to emphasize the importance of intellect and virtue, just as the Cinderella story mentioned as its parallel in the preface also implies. In Cinderella, the girl-made-poor housemaid uses her beauty and virtue to prove herself and get what she wants/deserves. Ref the Sly is dissimilar to Cinderella in that he’s lazy in the beginning and not in a sticky stepmother situation, but he does go on to prove himself through his wit and cunning. He appears to be good at everything, from boat making to sailing to house building to acting in disguise. He also thinks of everything. As I read the saga, I couldn’t help but think, who would think of and spend the time to build such an intricate fortress on the off-chance that someone from back home will try and get their revenge on you? But it works out for him in the end, so I suppose he’s justified in such an intricate creation.

One side note: on page 624, Ref goes on to meet the apostle Peter. This seems like another random interjection of Christian faith. It would be interesting to know if this actually happened, though! There aren’t any letters from Peter to the Vikings in the Bible…but who knows?

Reading Response #11

To start off, I thought these sagas were really cool because they dealt with Viking travel and finding America. It is a nice connection to our everyday lives (since we live in America :) ). The first thing I noticed was that Christianity was more present in these sagas, and there was even a pray uttered on p. 636 with a reference to Christ in a place where before, a pagan god would’ve been mentioned.

One thing that bugged me about The Saga of the Greenlanders was that they didn’t really take time to describe the natives that they met. To me, this was odd because I’m sure the natives looked different than anyone they’d seen before, with different dress and customs. If I were on that same exploration trip, that would’ve definitely been something I’d noted, along with all the different landscape and perhaps animals (aside from the fact that there were grapes and trees). Another thing with the natives—one asked Gudrid her name, and apparently already spoke her language…this makes no sense unless Vikings had already visited before and taught them English, which doesn’t seem likely; or the event never happened. A final observation on the native encounters is that Thorstein and others die of a sickness, p.644. I wonder what this sickness could have been, if it was some sort of scurvy from the voyage or a different sickness the natives had been immune to and transferred to them.

I also noticed that Thorstein wanted to tell Gudrid her fate before she died. It seems awfully specific, which made me wonder if that event actually took place in that amount of detail, or if that was something interjected by the author when the story was finally written down.

Finally, I was astonished by Freydis’ actions. This was total female manipulation to get her own way, threatening her husband for divorce (something not previously mentioned, either)! She even went overboard and killed the women of the party as well. The next page mentions torture to get information out of people, a casually-mentioned but exciting element to the story.

Saga Response #10 --Egil's Saga pt. 2

The second half of Egil’s saga completes this tale of familial conflict, as well as gives us the readers the full insight into Egil’s character. Egil comes off as a brash, ready-for-action fighter, while at the same time composes poetry in praise and admiration, grieves the loss of his son, has a weakness in his heart for his wife, and gives his friends/those he trusts the utmost loyalty. He is extremely long-lived, especially considering the amount of killing in this saga. I don’t know the average life span of a Viking at that time, but I’m sure that living to be 80 was an extraordinary feat.

One thing I did notice, present in prior sagas but I never really gave thought to, was the passage of time. This saga seemed to go on and on, but unlike stories today that would give at least yearly references, the time is only marked by the generations of the family within it and the handing down of kingships.

Women are much more prevalent in this saga and play important roles. Gunnhild, King Harald’s wife, is very much a factor in all Harald’s rulings against Egil.

One thing I was confused about at the end was why Steinar thought he had such a claim on Thorstein’s land. Maybe I missed it (it was a long saga, after all J ), but I didn’t really see any reason why he would have the privilege of grazing his cattle on what both he and Thorstein recognized as Thorstein’s land.

Reading Response #9

This was an interesting saga to read. It sounded more like a story that we would enjoy today, something with action, killing, betrayal, and trickery, all elements to a good story. I was intrigued by the concept of plundering—it was something we talked about in class a little in conjunction with raiding, but the plundering seemed different in this story than in the tales of Vikings I normally think of. The way that it was described, it seemed that raiding was an acceptable form of livelihood, that if one was short on the means to live at the time, one could just rig up their longboat, take a crew, and go for a good raid. The ones mentioned in this story seemed mostly lucrative, especially those of Thorolf. The fact that so much of his wealth was obtained this way makes me think less of his generous deeds. It doesn’t feel to me like he deserved or worked for his wealth. The same goes for King Harald—he came off to me as pouty, someone who needed constant reassurance of his own greatness, whose mood relied on the amount of superficial goods he was getting. I liked Olvir the best, because he seemed to have the best of all worlds: the good graces of King Harald while keeping peace with all those he dealt with. He seemed the most level-headed, giving everyone sound advice. He is not emphasized as much, I think, but I still like him for these qualities.

Another thing I liked about this saga was the mind games that Hildirid’s sons played with King Harald. They were sneaky in the way they manipulated Harald, causing him to question Thorolf and getting them what they wanted. This is sort of like the cunning Ofeig used in Saga of the Confederates.

A final thing I noticed was the difficulty of good communication. Hildirid’s sons were able to be so effective in swaying the King’s opinion because he didn’t come into contact with Thorolf very much due to distance. A way it seemed the King combated this problem was through “tokens” that he gave to whomever he was sending his message through.

My ending thought is that women seemed to be passed around quite a bit between the men. Once one died, his widow was given to another man not with her consent, but with the King’s decree. Sigrid sticks out in my mind most—she went through three husbands! I suppose these women must have been very good at adapting.

Reading Response #8

This reading was an interesting story of the beginning of the world. It’s apparent that Christianity is definitely the main religion at this point, as God is referenced as making the earth now instead of it sprouting from the body Ymir. It sounds like a summary of the Bible, even telling of a turning away from God by the people. This part reminds me of the Israelites’ rejection of God before the 10 Commandments are made, and makes me wonder if anything like this happened during Viking times. I can’t imagine it was a completely smooth transition from paganism to Christianity, and surely some Vikings wanted to turn back to their pagan gods just as the Israelites did.

This creation story also once again shows the importance of agriculture and farming to the Icelanders. The Christian Bible doesn’t really dwell on what the land looked like or what the people did with it, but this prologue really gets into the details of the earth and its special features that make it so significant. And the land not only has qualities that give the Icelanders their food and livelihoods, but also is credited with the re-discovery of God. I think this really shows the importance of earth and nature to the Vikings because it brought them back to their Christian God. It does strike me as odd, though, to have this description of God creating an earth that sounds normal to me in this modern day, with the same land and countries (like Africa and Europe), and then to have giants and dragons roaming over it.

One part of III kind of confused me. I found it strange that Thor would be fostered by this couple, who raised him to be a child of great stature, and then kill them in return for their good deed. Perhaps there is more to this story that I am not grasping.

Reading Response #7

This is kind of long…bear with me :)

Not being a huge history buff, I found these introductory passages helpful in giving the mythology some background. I like being able to place things in history and to know some of the context under which the stories were written and changed.

Here I’ll highlight a couple things I found interesting from the reading. First, I really liked the passage on p. 12 describing the way in which the mythology came to be as a final written product. We’ve talked about how oral tradition was very important in the Icelandic culture, and I think that it sums up the difficulty one might encounter when reading the stories. “Some speech acts were formal, others were not. But like speeches that politicians adapt for different audiences, much ancient knowledge must have been prone to change in oral transmission….we therefore cannot assume that a text recorded in a thirteenth-century source passed unchanged through centuries of oral transmission.” I think the reason I like this so much is that it explains the more fluid nature of these writings in modern terms (ie, politicians). This characteristic of the stories made them good to listen to back in the day, and an entertaining read, but at the same time, I’ll take them with a grain of salt knowing that they’ve been altered some throughout history.

Another thing that really caught my attention were the passages about Christianity. Although today, conversion to and practice of Christianity is voluntary, this has not always been the case throughout history, even with the Icelanders. Conversion to the Icelanders was more for political or social reasons instead of personal. This is an example of how good they were at adapting to different situations. We talked in class about how easily they conformed to other cultures when they traveled, and it is apparent that they were able to do the same in the switch from paganism to Christianity. While it’s impressive that they could do such a thing, in a culture today that allows for free practice of religion, it’s hard for me to imagine just “switching religions” that easily. I’d like to think that religion is an individual choice on a set of beliefs that governs how you live your life, not how your leader dictates how you live your life.

On another note, I thought it made sense that they should have a lot of gods of nature (in the pagan times), because their culture was so centered on farming and agriculture. I was recently reading about the Mayans, who sacrificed to the sun gods because the rising and setting of the sun was symbolic of the astrological calendar and of time that they found so important. Similarly, the Icelanders sacrificed at specific times of the year important to the crop yield because it was such an important aspect of their lives.

Out of all the entries, I liked the one of Midgard the best. To me, the story of the creation of Midgard seemed to vaguely parallel the creation story of the earth in Christianity. God made a place for men to live, just as the sons of Bur do—a safe place for all humans. I may be stretching for things, but I found it interesting that God created Adam in his image in the Bible and Ymir’s body is used to create Midgard…sort of a way that the gods are entwined with humans.

Reading Response #6

I found this saga enjoyable. It was interesting to “watch” as Ofeig used the power of persuasion and manipulation against the very confederates that were trying to manipulate and ruin his son. Again, the importance of familial ties and loyalty is demonstrated at the lengths Ofeig goes to clear his son of a wrongful charge. It states at the beginning that Ofeig “treated Odd coldly most of the time and cared little for him,” but yet Ofeig still tries to obtain justice for his son (465).

Another element of previous sagas, advice, is also present in this saga. Ofeig tries to give Odd advice or hints at the right thing to do numerous times as the story unfolds, but Odd generally ignores him and learns his lesson the hard way.

The fact that this saga was written after the saga age can be seen in a few ways. First, there is no poetry. While poetry served to give insight into characters’ emotions and explanations for events in past sagas, this absence of emotional presence is made up for through a large amount of conversation between characters. Conversation was never a big aspect of prior sagas, but in this saga it allows the reader to follow the characters, understand their actions, and observe personality traits.

Another way this saga differs from others written during the saga age is the detailed attention it gives to the law and system of justice. Prior sagas, like “Hrafnkel Frey’s Godi,” mentioned the law system and even described it slightly in a few passages, but none went into the depth found in this saga. Much of it takes place during a hearing at the Allthing, showing us how this process worked as well as the corruption of its confederates at the prospect of money.

Reading response #5

One of the things I first noticed about this saga was the concept of letting your child be reared by another, a topic we’ve discussed in previous classes. On p.440, Einar is told he must find his own work because his father Thorbjorn can no longer support him. At this point, he goes out and finds a job on Hrafnkel’s farm, working and living on his own. I thought it pretty impressive that Einar would take his burden in stride and promptly go out to find work at presumably still a somewhat-young age. I can see this concept of taking on responsibility in response to family need as another timeless idea that can be traced to our culture today. Although in America now it’s not really the norm to send a kid out to find work on their own, if a family is struggling to make ends meet, it’s almost an unspoken understanding that the kid will work for the family business however they can or at least start work elsewhere when they turn 16.

As the story of Einar continued, I was reminded a little of the Greek story of Icarus, when he fell to his death after not heeding the caution of his father to stay away from the sun. Einar didn’t see how anyone would find out about riding the stallion and was pleased with how well the horse rode. Thus he didn’t heed Hrafnkel’s warning and met his death. And, just as Einar didn’t listen to Hrafnkel, neither did Sam listen to anyone who tried to give him advice about seeking vengeance against Hrafnkel. First, Thorbjorn told him to give up the case against Hrafnkel, but Sam became stubborn and took it on as some sort of personal sacrifice. Then, everyone else Sam asked to help him out told him how stupid his mission was, but he still didn’t listen. His final act of thoughtlessness came when he refused to kill Hrafnkel, a move which pretty much ensured his own death.

Reading Response #4

I found this saga to be pretty interesting. I enjoyed finding that the Icelanders pretty much valued the same things we try to in our culture today. While reading, I couldn't help but be reminded of the 7 deadly sins that we try to avoid today. I think they're pretty much all represented in some form or another in this poem: gluttony and greed were addressed with food and drink moderation, envy and lust in the admonishments against wanting another man's wife, sloth in the passages about hard work (p.40), wrath I suppose was represented more vaguely with passages the importance of being friendly and true (instead of angry and vindictive), and pride in the stanzas stressing the importance of keeping silent when necessary and not boasting (p.30-34). I found that they really stressed honesty, moderation, and wisdom, and the importance of friendship, loyalty, hard work, and living a simple life.

Most of all, though, I felt the Icelanders placed the most importance on wisdom, for a lot of the stanzas focused on this quality. The poems spoke of how important it was for a man to be in control of his mind, to think critically, and to know the right time to speak. It intrigued me that knowing how to speak and communicate well was of such importance in this culture, because a lot of the images of the vikings today show them as a violent culture instead. This poem shows that there was much more to these people.

I also found this poem used repetition as a literary device. I think its purpose was to really make the qualities they were preaching about hit home. Since this poem was told orally for a long time, saying something over and over would be an effective way to stress the important points.

My favorite stanza was 47: "Young was I once, and wandered alone / And naught of the road I knew / Rich did I feel, when a comrade I found / For man is man's delight." I really liked this because I feel the same way when I find a true friend. Friends are extremely important to me, and having a good friend by your side means you have someone you can implicitly trust, be comfortable with, rely on, and laugh with. It's nice to see that the love of a friend is a timeless concept (especially when it is expressed so well--"man is man's delight.")

Reading Reponse #3

I didn’t enjoy this saga as much as the others. It sort of felt to me like a recitation of facts, one after another, that went on for a long time. I also got confused with all the characters that popped in and out of the saga. I did, however, enjoy Gisli’s poems more than the others we’ve read so far. To me, they sounded more straightforward and flowed a little better. Perhaps this was because there wasn’t as much confusing poetic vocabulary used in reference to simple nouns (like “bearer of the ale-horn” for “women”). Also, he wasn’t using his poems to impress anyone, merely to state his dreams, which I found to be refreshing.

As in the previous saga, fate played a major role in this story. I remember in class, we talked about how often, characters learn of their fate and try to do everything in their power to change it, but by doing so, just make it happen faster. I was reminded of that comment in this story, when the four men learned that they were fated to break apart, and tried to make a blood oath in order to prevent it the split. But Thorgrim won’t bind himself to Vestein, and Gisli then won’t be tied to Thorgrim for this, and already they see their fate coming to pass.

Dreams were also very prevalent in this saga, as in the Saga of Gunnlaug Serpent-Tongue. Gisli had quite a few more dreams, though, showing the importance the Icelanders placed on them. He relied heavily on his dreams, and they always turned out to be true.

I also noted how loyalty played out in this saga. It seemed to me to be an important quality. There were two examples that stuck with me: Helgi and Aun. I was kind of shocked to find that Helgi, as Ingjald’s son, would betray his father by revealing him to Gisli’s enemies (p. 536). It seemed odd to me that a son would do this when being loyal to one’s family through revenge is so heavily stressed. Also, I was impressed by Gisli and Aun’s loyalty to each other. Gisli always came back to his wife because “they loved each other greatly,” even though he was a hunted man (p.534). And Aun stayed with and helped her husband despite his dangerous status.

Reading Respose #2

To begin, I found the preface given by the translator to be helpful for me as a beginner reader of the sagas. I liked knowing the general gist of the saga before I started reading it. It helped to orient me to the general plotline, as well as to the focus and purpose of the saga (i.e., fate).

For the most part, I enjoyed the plotline of this saga. It kind of reminded me of the old princess tales I read/watched as a kid in which the noble princes fight for the hand of the beautiful princess. When Helga was sent away into hiding from her father as a baby, I was reminded of Princess Aura in Sleeping Beauty (sent to live in hiding from the queen as an infant). However, this saga had a more serious tone and ending than those tales. As the preface indicates, this was a tragic story—no one could obtain happiness: Gunnlaug never obtained his rightful wife; Hrafn got the girl but lived in a loveless relationship in which he was both emotionally and physically reminded he wasn’t wanted; Thorkel also suffered from living in a loveless relationship with Helga, and lived very unhappily after her death; Helga loved a man she could never have, had no say in her future, and mourned the loss of her true love; and all their relatives had to live with their tragic (and somewhat unnecessary) deaths.

I noticed that there was a lot of emphasis put on features in this story. The men that were the best were “manly,” “handsome,” “athletic,” “wise,” etc. Men who did not have all these features pretty much didn’t make it into the sagas because they weren’t worth talking about. Gunnlaug himself was “manly” and very good at poetry. On the female side, Helga was praised only because she was the most beautiful in Iceland. Her purpose seemed more as a pawn in the wedding than the celebrated bride, for she was given no say in her future husband. Her beauty was quite useful to bring about the fated deaths of the two men, though, so perhaps that is why this is her only stressed trait.

While the style of writing is different than what I am used to, I find myself kind of liking the fact that once a character had served their purpose in the saga, they simply were “now out of this saga” (p.564). The Icelanders didn’t mess around with characters or events that they felt didn’t add to the story’s meaning/purpose. I also enjoyed the concept of fate in this saga. The dream’s straightforward foreshadowing of later events gave me as a reader something to look forward to. I felt it also let me focus more on the characters because I didn’t have to focus as much on the already-outlined plot.

Reading Response to Sagas #1

With this first experience with Icelandic sagas, I found that as the introduction described, the sagas were told with an unadorned prose that successfully told the tale and moral of the stories. What stuck out to me most from these stories were the traits of the characters. While this was also touched upon in the introduction, I found for myself that honor was one of the most important values in their culture. This could be seen on p. 681 where it was more important to Thorarin as a father to see his son Thorstein die trying to regain his honor than be a coward. Thorarin later proves the importance of honor again as he tries to avenge his son’s “death” with an attempted stabbing of the “killer,” Bjarni (p.683).

Another important concept in these sagas was upright character and generosity. For example, “The Tale of Audun from the West Fjords” tells of Audun’s good virtue in his gift and his religious journey, as well as King Harald’s, for permitting Audun to live. This pays off for both in the end, as Audun not only gets to keep his life, but gets all he needs to live back in Iceland, and King Harald receives a gold ring. Generosity can be seen with King Svein in his numerous gifts and kindness to Audun.

The sagas also seem to incorporate some humor into their stories, as in the poems of Sarcastic Halli to Queen Thora and in with Thorstein and Thorkel the Thin (the demon). This helped me as a reader to enjoy the sagas more as well as make them a little more realistic than preachy, since humor is part of the day-to-day life.

I also wondered what the forfeit cup was on p.688 that Halldor had to drink. Maybe I missed that in the introduction…?