Further Reflections on the Hárbarðsljóð

TW: sexual assault/rape

Last night, the Hárbarðsljóð kept me up. I don't think about the poem all that often, other than as a reference to the fact that Thor has a hall for the peasants and thralls who die, as another marker of how he stands for the weak and the forgotten, for the every man rather than the kings and men of power.

But last night, after Dr. Ford's testimony and the Kavanaugh defense, a piece of the poem came vividly into focus--and suddenly it wasn't so funny anymore. It wasn't something I could dismiss or ignore or push aside any longer.

These particular lines:

Harbarth spake:
30. "Eastward I was, | and spake with a certain one,
I played with the linen-white maid, | and met her by stealth;
I gladdened the gold-decked one, | and she granted me joy."
Thor spake:
31. "Full fair was thy woman-finding."
Harbarth spake:
32. "Thy help did I need then, Thor, | to hold the white maid fast."
Thor spake:
33. "Gladly, had I been there, | my help to thee had been given."

These lines sound very much like two men boasting and congratulating one another on their conquests, and not only that--it sounds very much like Thor is talking about gladly helping Odin hold a woman down while he rapes her.

Suddenly, I wasn't sure if I could trust Thor.

Those of you who have been following the blog for forever know that Thor is pretty much my patron god. I'm Heathen and my faith in Thor has gotten me through a LOT over the years. Even before I recognized who he was, he was beside me, lending me strength to face my greatest struggles and my hardest moments. Thor is... one of the two most important things in my life. Half of a binary sun around which my life orbits. Questioning that faith, that trust, is not a small thing for me. Not at all.

I can take you through any number of mental gymnastics, a handful of theories that excuse Thor's general behavior in this poem on the whole--that the poem, a flytting poem, is basically meant to be a hit job on his character, to show him as useless and worthless, to undermine the faith of his followers in a time when Christianity was pushing hard against pagan faith traditions. Or point out the fact that the lore and the myths are not divinely inspired gospel, but written by men, copied and recopied imperfectly much later, and in this particular case, was probably preserved BECAUSE it takes shots at Thor.

I can tell myself, and you, that this does not in any way align with the Thor I have come to know--that it is at complete odds with the god who stands beside me, and I can remind myself that I have always believed that both the gods change with us, AND as we change, our understanding of the gods changes too. This poem might well just be a reflection of the culture of the time and nothing more, an attempt to see mankind in the divine, and as we have grown, we are more able to see PAST our own reflections to the deeper truth of their character and their presence.

But it doesn't take away these verses. Or the others, where Thor shows an overeager interest in Odin/Harbarth's sexual conquests. It doesn't make it hurt less to read these words as they spill from the lips of the god I love.

It doesn't make it any easier to realize that in a thousand years, nothing has changed. Because a thousand years ago, men were still boasting of their conquests, laughing together about the pleasure they took at the expense of some woman along the way.

I don't know what any of this means. How to reconcile it, really or fully, with my experience of Thor and my faith. I expect I'm going to be wrestling with that for some time. But I'm not going to pretend that the suggestion of sexual violence isn't there. Not in the past--not when it is something we are still fighting against so desperately in the present.

---

Amazon | Barnes&Noble 

Amazon | Barnes&Noble

Helen, Theseus, and the Mythic Seeds of Discord

(crossposted)

The conflicts between Sparta and Athens run deep and long, and as we all know from reading Homer and Herodotus, it was the habit of the ancient world to take common ideas and issues along with common ways-of-doing-things and reflect those back onto the struggles of their heroes in myth. Perhaps then, it would be stranger if Sparta and Athens did not have anything to fight over during the age of heroes.

What if, in part, this was the purpose of Theseus' abduction of Helen in the myths?

Helen and Theseus
via wikimedia commons

The House of Atreus was known to be cursed, after all, and I have no trouble believing that if Theseus made an honest offer of marriage to Tyndareus and it was refused in favor (either in fact, or by assumption) of Menelaus and Mycenae, Athens would find that snub very offensive indeed. How dare Sparta insult their hero by choosing a cursed man as the husband of Helen over Theseus?

But that wouldn't be all. You see, the conflict goes both ways. Say that, in retaliation of this snub, or even just for funsies, Theseus chooses to take what he wants after all. He's deserving. Certainly he is, by pedigree, a better match for Helen than Menelaus could ever be. Theseus is a son of Poseidon, a (for the moment) successful and powerful king, and a hero equal only to Heracles. Add into the equation the dodgy influence of piratical Pirithous, and it's easy to see how Theseus might be persuaded to pursue Helen without her father's consent. Even to go so far as to kidnap her (because it isn't like he hasn't whisked women off before--and that kind of behavior was well established by Heracles, and even more established by the behavior of the gods who did that kind of thing with great regularity. Helen herself is a product of this same entitlement, after all!).

Sparta, taking great offense by the kidnap of their princess and HEIR, sends off their best to get her back. Helen's brothers, Castor and Pollux--the Dioscuri--find her if not in Athens, at the very least, under the power of Theseus, possibly even violated by him! I can't imagine Sparta not being highly insulted and infuriated by such a thing, and these Greeks-- they know how to hold a grudge.

Take into account the fact that in the process of Helen's retrieval, Castor and Pollux upset the inheritance of Athens by putting their own man on the throne, and you've got an even greater recipe for long-standing conflict. Sparta has just added insult to injury by meddling in Athens' politics. You don't even need Athens to have been insulted by the choosing of Menelaus over Theseus first (though I will say that I find that to be pretty compelling).

In this one story, a relative latecomer to the drama and tragedy of Helen of Troy, the seeds of enmity between Sparta and Athens have been sewn. These Myths, after all, are the ancient Greek way of explaining the whys and wherefores.

So, why are Sparta and Athens constantly finding reasons to dispute with one another? Well you see, once long ago, there was a girl named Helen....

---

Available April 1, 2015 
Amazon | B&N | Goodreads

Long before she ran away with Paris to Troy, Helen of Sparta was haunted by nightmares of a burning city under siege. These dreams foretold impending war—a war that only Helen has the power to avert. To do so, she must defy her family and betray her betrothed by fleeing the palace in the dead of night. In need of protection, she finds shelter and comfort in the arms of Theseus, son of Poseidon. With Theseus at her side, she believes she can escape her destiny. But at every turn, new dangers—violence, betrayal, extortion, threat of war—thwart Helen’s plans and bar her path. Still, she refuses to bend to the will of the gods.

A new take on an ancient myth, Helen of Sparta is the story of one woman determined to decide her own fate.

---

* *
Buy Now:
Amazon | Barnes&Noble

Theseus and Democracy, or The Adopted Son and Popular Rule

Walters Art Museum
[Public domain, CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL],
via Wikimedia Commons

What if Theseus is the first Adopted heir? And the reason he's credited as bringing democracy to Athens is because he was claimed the "long lost son" of Aegeus as a political necessity, to appease the people of Athens and Attica?

I mean, Theseus had a purpose -- he was going to Athens to claim (or make?) his place there. He built his reputation along the way in such a manner as to make it virtually impossible for Aegeus to turn him away. When he arrived, according to some myths, Medea advised Aegeus to kill him, because he was obviously seeking to usurp Aegeus's power.

And maybe she was right. Maybe Theseus was a champion of the people of Attica, intent on upsetting the status quo, to over throw the king (and his sorceress mistress?) and reassert the peoples' power -- to speak with the peoples' voice? And maybe, Aegeus, realizing the error of his ways, (was he a tyrant? he might have been!) instead of being overthrown, used it to his advantage to preserve his own power while at the same time giving his people the appearance of winning, by adopting Theseus as his son. He didn't have any heirs, after all, and if the people were revolting against the current leadership, whatever Medea's plans were, they weren't going to work. And there was always the hope that Theseus might end up dead in Crete anyway.

And maybe that was even a condition of the adoption -- maybe to be declared Aegeus's heir, Theseus had to go to Crete as tribute, and IF he survived and returned to Athens, he would then be given the kingship, free and clear.

And maybe when Aegeus leaped from the rock to his death, it wasn't grief that drove him. Maybe it was the realization that he'd lost the gamble, and Theseus had returned -- and knowing he'd lost his kingdom, maybe he wanted to save face. Rather than being removed, he made a statement, and shadowed Theseus' ascendance with his suicide.

All of this assuming, of course, that a man named Theseus might have lived, and a king named Aegeus might have died.

---

Available April 1, 2015 
Amazon | B&N | Goodreads

Long before she ran away with Paris to Troy, Helen of Sparta was haunted by nightmares of a burning city under siege. These dreams foretold impending war—a war that only Helen has the power to avert. To do so, she must defy her family and betray her betrothed by fleeing the palace in the dead of night. In need of protection, she finds shelter and comfort in the arms of Theseus, son of Poseidon. With Theseus at her side, she believes she can escape her destiny. But at every turn, new dangers—violence, betrayal, extortion, threat of war—thwart Helen’s plans and bar her path. Still, she refuses to bend to the will of the gods.

A new take on an ancient myth, Helen of Sparta is the story of one woman determined to decide her own fate.

---

* *
Buy Now:
Amazon | Barnes&Noble

Thor in Comics, Myth, and Film; and the Christianization of Myth

I spent some time recently mulling over this interview on the Norse Mythology Blog (which is a fantastic resource for anyone studying or interested in Norse Myth, by the way), and it finally allowed my thoughts on the topic of the Thor movies and Marvel and Myth to come together in a way that's been eluding me for some time. While I highly recommend you read the post on that blog first, discussing the Thor movies and how they relate to the myths and culture of the Norse people, you can probably get away with reading this post without it, as well.

---

Most mythic traditions are not static (those that descend from Oral traditions even less so) -- we see that in the discussion of the myths from the perspective of the three different sources mentioned in this interview (Adam of Bremen, Snorri, and Tacitus). We see it, also, comparatively, in the Greek and Roman myths, where a lot more sources and therefore a lot more contradictions have survived. Myth and religion before Christianity was often HIGHLY localized, and it makes sense that this same localization could exist temporally as well -- time and culture warping and changing the myths, excising the old and introducing the new, to make it relevant to the modern values of that period and culture as those values and cultures shift. This is why there isn't a lot of argument about the fact that comics are a continuation of these ancient mythologies, generally speaking.

I can completely understand the frustration of Christian values being cast backward onto myths which predate them* but we can't deny that Christianity has transformed culture and civilization in the western world (in some cases to the good, in others horrifyingly the opposite.) It's only natural that this coloring and transformation would continue to occur as we retell these pre-Christian myths and bring them into the modern era, and I would argue that perhaps this is just another form of localization, not meant to invalidate or erase, but to co-exist peaceably alongside all the other interpretations and perspectives, much like we tolerate, study, and treat inclusively the differences and contradictions between Euripides and Plutarch. Or, to stay within the same fold of faith, the Swedish traditions discussed by Adam of Bremen and the Icelandic tradition as preserved by Snorri.

I think it's obvious from the Prose Edda's introduction, that Snorri grinds up the cultural artifact of Norse Myth just as determinedly as the entertainment industry -- and arguably, for the same reasons, to make it easily graspable by the widest possible demographic, in order to preserve the poetic forms of that period -- but we accept him as a legitimate and valuable source for Norse Myth, all the same, in spite of the fact that he was Christian, and living in a time when the majority of the worship of these gods had been stamped out by the Church. So is he really so different from Marvel? Or Hollywood in general?

I'm not saying we shouldn't point at the Thor movies and the Thor comics and deconstruct them, discussing what is consistent with the previous mythology and what isn't -- I think it's absolutely important and critical that we do so! But I think, perhaps, we should also be discussing and acknowledging and accepting that myth evolves while we engage in this study, rather than using the deconstruction as a way to invalidate the new interpretations. We should examine where these "new" or "transformative" elements have come from, just as we examine Snorri's Edda, or Homer's Iliad, but that doesn't mean once they've been identified, they should be rejected out of hand.

Hollywood and Marvel aren't my personal first choice for a vehicle of preservation and continuation of myth (I wouldn't write books of my own, otherwise), but I think we can safely say that they make it that much harder to forget that Thor exists. And they get maybe the absolute most important element right when it comes to Thor's character and duties -- as the interview also discusses, he is more than anything else a protector. Perhaps the way in which he chooses to protect Jane and the world in the first Thor film is not quite what the old Norse people would have imagined,** but since this is a different time, practically a different world, it only makes sense that Thor's approach to the problem (still very direct, mind you, which *is* in line with the older sources) might shift as well.

Personally, I think we've been very fortunate with Marvel's Thor. After seeing Trash Clash of the Titans, and Immortals That Movie We Do Not Speak Of, and reading plot synopses for TWO*** forthcoming "Hercules" retellings which seem to not be related to any myths surrounding Hercules at all in the slightest, Marvel's Thor is all the more impressive as an adaptation and modern reinterpretation, certainly he's treated with far more respect as to his essential character.

And honestly? Sometimes I think, when it comes to mythology as it is reinterpreted into modern religion, we do ourselves a disservice by clinging too much to the past. And if these gods are so powerful, so incredible, that they merely choose to allow us to see them in one form or another, I have a hard time believing they don't adapt along with us as the world turns on -- or at least that they've been around long enough that these changes in how we view them and their roles aren't anything they haven't seen before. Or at least, I'd like to give them at least that much benefit of the doubt.


*I shake my fist at the sky about this A LOT, and no tradition, imho, has suffered more from this kind of imposition than the Jewish tradition, which was 100% co-opted. And there is definitely no excuse for doing this if you're creating something that is meant to be historical. Fantasy is different, and something set in the modern day -- well, that's what this blogpost is about ultimately.

**I think there is definitely an argument to be made for the second film following a more mythic-Thor manner of problem solving: go to your opponent's home field, and then just THROW DOWN as hard as possible until they are crushed by Mjolnir. Generally in the myths this works out pretty well for Thor. One time he slays an entire hall of Giants, women and children included.

***seriously guys what the eff is this movie? Hercules has SO MANY AWESOME MYTHS I just CANNOT UNDERSTAND why hollywood doesn't just USE one instead of making him something totally else that has nothing to do with anything even remotely related? Even for Roman Hercules this does not make any sense, and it states openly in the summary that it's set in the bronze age -- which makes it 100% wrong already. Sorry Hollywood, there were no Gladiators in 1200BC. (It would make me a lot less angry if they would stop putting dates on these films that are not even remotely historically accurate at all in the slightest.)

Sif, Goddess of... Prosperity?

We've talked a little bit about Sif before on the blog -- mostly in regard to how little we have in the source material attesting to her character, which I'd like to recap briefly:

Sif

Thor's wife, Sif, is only related to us in any real detail in two places. A story in the Skáldskaparmál (from Snorri's Prose Edda) during which Loki shaves off her hair in the night as a cruel prank, and within a poem called the Lokasenna in the Poetic Edda where Loki insults by turns the majority of those residing in Asgard, Sif included. Sif is greatly upset by the loss of her hair, and Loki, to make amends (and probably to prevent Thor from delivering a beating he wouldn't soon forget) retrieves for her a wig of golden hair from the dwarves to replace it. In the Lokasenna, Loki accuses Sif of taking him as her lover. We don't know if Sif actually did have an affair with Loki or not, as it is neither confirmed nor denied anywhere else in the remaining myths and she doesn't refute it in the poem.

We know Sif is beautiful, but other than these two accounts, we know nothing about her character. My own interpretation of Sif from these bits and pieces is of a vain goddess, and from the way she addresses Loki in the Lokasenna it almost sounds as though because of her relationship with him, she expects him not to insult her. I wouldn't be surprised if Loki appealed to her vanity to get her into bed with him, since Thor is so often out wandering and getting into fights with giants.

But there's a third discussion of Sif's character that I mentioned in a later post, from the Lay of Hárbarðr, wherein a disguised Odin, in a match of insult with Thor, tells his son that Sif is having an affair and he should get back home and deck that guy instead of standing around unarmed in a battle of wits. Add to this the established fact that Sif has a son, Ullr, who is most explicitly named as Thor's step-son, and it gives you some food for thought. Either Sif had an affair with someone before her marriage to Thor (totally plausible) or she had an affair after she married Thor.

Admittedly, both of these accusations regarding Sif's fidelity are brought out in Flyting Poems, wherin the entire point is to out-insult the other party. And just as admittedly, calling a dude a cuckold is probably low-hanging fruit. But you have to wonder. Or at least I do. Especially when there is so little else to support any indication of Sif's character beyond the story of her hair being shorn, are these two references to her as an adulteress preserved for a reason? Is it another way to show that Thor is kind of a dumb ox, too stupid to realize his wife is fooling around behind his back? But if so, it's only powerful if it's true.

Now it's pretty well assumed that Sif's golden hair is an association with wheat and the bounty of the harvest, and her marriage to Thor is maybe representative of the union of sky god and earth goddess -- the rain falling to fertilize the fields -- but I'm not sure this makes Sif herself a goddess of fertility, so much as it reflects upon Thor's position as a god of fertility. But what if Sif with her golden hair made of magic, practically living gold, was a goddess of prosperity instead? The sheering of her hair being representative of the harvest and the reaping of wheat is pretty well accepted, but instead of Sif growing that hair back like any normal person, it's replaced with gold. What if she's the goddess invoked to protect the STORES, the goddess of the gathered bounty, and the wealth it can provide in exchange.

There isn't, that I've found so far, any sign or symbolism related to Sif as a healer, but prosperity is hardly limited to grain and money (though I do kind of like the idea of her being a goddess of bread and beer, just because... alliteration). Prosperity is a product of health -- a man being strong enough to plow his fields and plant his seed, then capable of harvesting it, bringing it to market after that. It's a product of surviving childbirth and raising those kids to adulthood to help work the fields and support the family.

But if she's a goddess concerned with wealth, that certainly might relate to greed and vanity, in addition. Success and prosperity is so often caught up in honor and respect. Appearances and keeping up with the Joneses, next door. And if Thor is running around having affairs with Giantesses -- Jarnsaxa is the father of Magni, Thor's son -- and leaving her at home while he goes about Adventuring, it isn't difficult to believe that Sif might be inclined to punish him for the perceived slight to herself. And what Sif can give by way of prosperity, bounty, children, gold, honor, health, I have no trouble believing she can take away.

Maybe that's why the only child Sif and Thor have together is one, single daughter, Thrud.

The Story of Baldur and Mistletoe

I've talked about Baldur a bit on the blog before, and in light of the fact that Baldur might very well be the Old Norse answer to Jesus, it seems like now would be a good time to give us all something of a refresher course regarding the events leading up to his death, especially after I just read this (admittedly older) post at the Smithsonian discussing the biological evolution of Mistletoe as a plant.

The evolution of Mistletoe itself is fascinating, and definitely told in a compelling way, and totally a cool read -- if you can overlook the first paragraph on Mistletoe's representation in Norse Mythology. Which brings us to today's post!

Baldur was the Son of Odin and Frigg (which made him Thor's half-brother), a god known both for his wisdom and his strength of character. He was Baldur the Shining, Baldur the Good, Baldur the fair and beautiful, and the most beloved of all the gods in Asgard. So beloved, in fact, that when his death was prophesied, his mother had no trouble exacting a promise from every living thing (and maybe less living things, too) that they would not harm him. She overlooked Mistletoe because it was too young and too small to be perceived as a threat (and I must give a nod to the author of the article for describing the roots as spears/arrows, which is pretty fascinating considering what comes next).

After these vows were made, the gods of Asgard made a sport of trying to "hurt" Baldur, because he had become invulnerable. In the evenings they would have a game of throwing things at him, shooting him with arrows, knives, rocks, branches for the fun of seeing it bounce off. It was a very merry time in Asgard, believing the Crisis was  Averted (as Baldur's death was to herald the coming of Ragnarok, and the end of the world as the gods had known it).

But Loki found out that Frigg had overlooked the Mistletoe, and made a weapon from it. He placed it in Baldur's blind brother's hand, and encouraged him to take part in the game. Duped, Hod threw the mistletoe at his brother, all in good fun.

When the mistletoe struck Baldur, he fell down dead.

There was no greater moment of grief and sadness in Asgard. Not only because Baldur the BEST of them had been killed, his light extinguished, his goodness lost, but also because it meant the coming of Ragnarok --  which was fated to result in the death of so, so many gods, and the destruction of the world as it was known, and everything within it.

And that is the story of Baldur and his fatal encounter with Mistletoe, the plant that Frigg thought harmless.

Jason and those pesky Argonauts.

So, I just finished reading The Lost Hero and all I could think about as I read this book was how much I NEVER want to have anything to do with Jason and the Argonauts as a writer of historical fiction/fantasy. Never, you guys. Never, ever, ever. I cannot say it enough. And this is why:

1) No one agrees about who all took part in this famous Voyage of Heroes.
    I suppose it isn't Jason's fault that his crew has become muddled over time, so I guess Jason himself is not my enemy in this, but rather the city-states who each wanted to have their hero take part and so completely obscured any truth that might have ever existed. (Myth Shmyth. I said HISTORICAL fantasy, didn't I?)

2) Trying to fit the voyage of the Argonauts into an historical and linear narrative with OTHER heroic quests and adventures is completely impossible.* 
    If you do figure out who went, fitting it in between Heracles' 12 labors etc, Theseus' Labors etc (And don't forget "Not Without Theseus" was actually a SAYING because he was involved in everything, apparently), Helen's abductions and the Trojan War, and the stories of the Dioscuri (Helen's brothers) is kind of ridiculous. It all takes place AT THE SAME TIME. Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that none of the major players went with Jason at all, because there is just no way to put it all together and have everyone be where they're supposed to be later. No. Way.

3) Balancing UMPTEEN Heroes all in one cast of characters while giving them all distinct personalities and a fair shake while not IMPOSSIBLE (Joss Whedon, do not fail me with Avengers), definitely poses challenges.
    There sure would be plenty of conflict within the party. No lack of ego and hubris as they all struggle to work as a team when each one is used to taking the lead and doing their own thing. I mean, if Jason is in charge, that makes everyone else involved his SIDEKICK, and I'm just not sure how to tackle Heracles or Theseus as a sidekick to anyone -- they're both forces to be reckoned with, to say the least. Then of course there is the potential of bad blood between heroes who had engaged in altercations pre-voyage, all confined to a ship for how long?

It isn't that I don't like to challenge myself when writing -- but Jason and the Argonauts is a Gordian Knot of  epic proportions, and frankly, it gives me a headache just THINKING about it. Consider the fact that we're all worried about whether AVENGERS is going to work as a movie, because the cast of heroes is so large -- and then remember that there were between 40 and 60 men (and women) named as Argonauts. Even for a book, which allows a lot more "screen time" than a film, that is a LOT of folks to work into a narrative.

Sorry, Jason. Not for all the tea in China am I touching that story. Not for a million dollars would I write that book (well, okay, I'd give it a SHOT for a million dollars, but I would not make any promises regarding quality, and if I failed, I'd definitely have to be able to keep the money...)

*I've discussed the trouble with chronology and historical dating of myth before, as you might recall.

Baldur as the Old Norse Answer to Jesus

The Invincible, Shining Baldur!

I'm currently reading Robert Ferguson's The Vikings: A History (Penguin, 2009), and came across this passage, discussing the reasons behind the start of the Viking Age:

The threat [Charlemagne's active crusades to Christianize and conquer] may even have affected Viking Age poetry. As we noted earlier, many scholars believe that the Viking Age's greatest spiritual monument, 'The Seeress's Prophecy', was composed comparatively late in the history of northern Heathendom as a direct response to the threat of militant expansionist Christianity and the dramatic and seductive Judaic creation myths of the Bible (p 56).

The tumblers began to fall into place almost at once. The poem he refers to, The Voluspa, gives an account of the entirety of Norse Mythology, from creation to the events leading up to Ragnarok and beyond -- addressing the death of Baldur and his return to rule the new world, post Ragnarok. I'd never considered the story of Baldur from this perspective -- as a response to Christian ideals -- having always assumed it to be part of the lore before Christian influence, but once you start, the tumblers all start clicking together into place.

What if Baldur is the Heathen answer to Jesus? The only son of Odin and Frigg -- indeed, very possibly the only LEGITIMATE son of Odin and his wife -- Baldur is known for his essential goodness, his extreme beauty, his wisdom, and his sense of justice. The Seeress mentions the death of Baldur, and even tells Odin it will be the Mistletoe, thrown by Hod, which will kill him. She details the major events of Ragnarok, too, but the poem finishes with a vision of what will come after the death of so many of the gods:

59. Now do I see | the earth anew
Rise all green | from the waves again;
The cataracts fall, | and the eagle flies,
And fish he catches | beneath the cliffs.

60. The gods in Ithavoll | meet together,
Of the terrible girdler | of earth they talk,
And the mighty past | they call to mind,
And the ancient runes | of the Ruler of Gods.

61. In wondrous beauty | once again
Shall the golden tables | stand mid the grass,
Which the gods had owned | in the days of old,
.    .    .    .    .        .    .    .    .    .

62. Then fields unsowed | bear ripened fruit,
All ills grow better, | and Baldr comes back;
Baldr and Hoth dwell | in Hropt's battle-hall,
And the mighty gods: | would you know yet more?

And the second to last stanza, powerful, broken and corrupted, considered spurious by most academics, but which makes a LOT more sense if all of this (and Baldur's story in particular) is the response to the Christian ideas of the ever impending return of Jesus:

 65. There comes on high, | all power to hold,
A mighty lord, | all lands he rules.
Rule he orders, | and rights he fixes,
Laws he ordains | that ever shall live.

What if the peoples of Scandinavia, after they heard about Jesus responded with "Oh yeah? Well we have Baldur, and he does everything your god does, only better." What if Ragnarok as recounted by the Seeress is really just a metaphor for the Christianization of the world, resulting in the "death" of the gods, until Baldur returns -- until the PEOPLE return to their faith in the old gods and the old ways, even to the Golden Tables of the gods? What if Ragnarok was already happening when the Voluspa was written?

Maybe Baldur became the answer, the hope of a people who saw their way of life, their faith, their very cultural identity, being destroyed and replaced. Just hang in there, he says, Christianity is just a fad. Your gods are coming back, and they're going to bring you a better world, one where you'll be protected and everything will be even more beautiful than before. You aren't forgotten -- your gods are at war, fighting for your survival, and we're going to win.

Thor and Loki (No Footnotes, Just Gut)

A long time ago I posted about The Essential Thor -- that is the Thor I had come to know through reading the myths and researching him half to death (or possibly half to life) -- and today I want to kind of continue that thought.

So much of how I judge Thor is related to how he interacts with others, his relationships with the other gods, his loyalty to the people he loves. His relationship with Loki, of course, is at the center of a lot of this in the myths. Thor and Loki are always traveling together, always getting into mischief and bailing each other out of it, and until recently, I didn't really understand the dynamic between them. It is so easy for me to see Loki as the villain, the deceiver and the troublemaker, and so hard for me to see what Thor does in the myths: a companion and friend, someone worth seeking out for adventures, someone to keep at your back or turn to in a crisis.

Then it occurred to me that Loki was sometimes considered a blood brother to Odin, Thor's father. And Odin was king of the gods, king of Asgard, ruler and warrior. No doubt he was a very busy god. What if Loki stepped in where Odin did not have the time to spend? What if Thor had been raised from a young age to consider Loki as his uncle? What if that was the foundation of their relationship? It explains everything so perfectly, fits everything together like matching pieces in a puzzle.

Loki was the cool uncle who let Thor do all the fun stuff. Loki was the person who took him on adventures and rescued Thor from trouble at the last minute. We see it in the myths, too, that when Thor is in trouble, he goes to Loki first, not Odin. Just consider the cross-dressing Thor, incident. When the Mjollnir disappears, Thor doesn't race to his father, the man with the seat that allows him to see everything in the nine worlds, Thor goes to Loki. Thor goes to Loki because Loki has always gotten him out of scrapes in the past, and Loki isn't going to judge him, or give him a hard time, or punish him, the way a father might, for getting into the scrape to begin with. Even though Odin could have discerned the location of Mjollnir faster and more easily, Thor appeals to a different power for help.

We see in the myths that it is most often Loki leading Thor on these trips which always end in some kind of disastrous fix -- but why is Thor following along so blithely? Why is it so hard for Thor to see what's coming when he gets involved in these adventures? Even Thor isn't that dumb. I mean, sure, he isn't the brightest of the gods, but that's a whole different level of blind naivety. But if Thor was raised to trust him, raised looking up to him as his fun uncle, raised to trust that Loki will take care of him from childhood, it all makes so much more sense.

And it also explains how difficult it is for Thor to finally face the facts of Loki's nature, and just why Thor has given him forgiveness after forgiveness. It makes sense that in the Lokasenna, Thor blows a gasket even to see the uncle who betrayed him, betrayed his whole family, by engineering Balder's death. The first words out of his mouth are shut up, or I'll hammer your mouth shut -- and  after all the trouble Loki has gotten Thor into before now, after all the times Thor has just laughed and forgiven him, that kind of immediate response seems like a break in character. But Loki has finally crossed the line. His sins are too great to overlook.

Thor responds to Loki like a child who suddenly realizes the truth about his parent. Balder's death, his brother's murder, shatters Thor's ideal of who Loki is in a way nothing else could have. Suddenly, Thor is able to see clearly, man to man, god to god, giant to giant. Thor should have expected some kind of betrayal from Loki -- but he didn't. He couldn't see around the idea of the Uncle he had looked up to all his life to recognize the truth of his character. He couldn't see that the mischief hid malice, because he was a boy who saw the best in the uncle who had half-raised him.

Loki and Thor's relationship is tragic. It ends the way so many of Loki's adventures did -- in disaster. And when it really mattered, when it might have made all the difference, Loki went out of his way to be sure it couldn't be fixed.*

*Hermod went all the way to Hel and bargained to bring Balder back to life, and Hel promised Balder could return if everything in the world wept for him. Everything did, but for Loki, disguised as a Giantess who refused to mourn, and so Hel  refused to release Balder. Loki could have fixed everything, they all could have had a laugh over their mead and Loki would have been redeemed. 

The Essential Thor (no footnotes, just gut.)

I've been working with the character of Thor, the Norse god of thunder and lightning, for years. Years of research and reading and false starts and conversations in the dark with the ceiling that resulted in terrible stories and drafts while I struggled to pinpoint what was there. Years of trying to understand what was at the heart of this god, who was so loved by his people, honored even in many ways above Odin the All-Father. Loved so much, even now, that he was re-imagined and transported into the medium of the comic book for the modern world. Thor, who we will soon be over-saturated by, in the quest for world domination and movie marketing schemes. Hollywood always knows how to run a good man into the ground. But for myself, I'm hoping they do him justice, because after years of trying to find the answer of this god's character, this god's essence, this god's spirit within the scraps of mythology we're given, he became my most favorite of all mythological heroes. (Theseus may be coming in at a close second, but don't tell Thor. He'll start going on about how Theseus is "unworthy".)

I think that there was a very good reason that Thor was the preferred god of the everyman, and I don't think that it was because he was stupid, or because he was always getting into brawls and slaughtering giants, or because he was often drunk on mead and loved to feast with the best of us. I don't even think it was because he cross-dressed, although Mimzy tells that story better than I've ever heard it before. I think the reason Thor was so beloved was because he always helped his people. Thor was the god that could be depended on, no matter what had happened, to go out and do what had to be done-- whether that was beating down on Loki, or killing off giants, or drinking a ton of mead, or dressing up as a woman. Thor was intensely loyal, unwavering, and good.

That's not to say he couldn't be led off track every so often. Loki makes this perfectly clear in all the stories where they travel together to accomplish some task, or just for the sake of getting out and about. Perhaps Thor is trusting to a fault. Certainly he doesn't seem to take to deception very easily when he's forced to employ its arts. He's not at all like Loki in that way. He'd much rather bust down the door and employ a frontal assault, even if he can't win. And that in itself is something admirable, too-- it's one of the things that I have always respected in those people who also share that characteristic. The people who throw their punches and then shake it off, and buy one another a drink afterwards.