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.