After reviewing all of the sagas we've read, I've come to the conclusion that one of the most intriguing characters for me has been King Harald. He is not particuarly involved in any one saga, but it is his presence across many sagas that makes him interesting to me. He is never portrayed as exactly the same character, but is different in each one according to his relationship to the main protagonist of that saga. But if the sagas have had one overall contribution to our understanding of the political aspects of this historical era, I think it is their depiction of this incredibly important king. Harald united all of Norway, and while some historians would rather learn about the daily lives of ordinary people (which the sagas give plenty of insight into), it is also important to understand the leaders of kingdoms who shaped the larger currents of their kingdoms.
I also think another reason I liked King Harald so much was because I know that he was portrayed accurately, despite the many different perspectives. Because each person perceives another person differently according to the circumstances surrounding their meeting. Harald also never seemed larger than life, just wise and strong and adept, if sometimes weak and prone to believing other peoples' gossip. He was a fascinating character to follow all semester throughout the many sagas.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Week Fourteen: The Saga of Ref the Sly
This saga, more than any other we've read, seems like an actual story told for entertainment. I enjoyed the storyline, and can see how it would be a good nighttime tale told around a fire. There were a number of indications beyond the introduction stating this saga to be fantastical. Gest suggests that Ref should "have a story written about [his] journey, because it will seem noteworthy to some people" (605). Greenland is presented as a sort of mythical, ambiguous place, especially compared to its description in the Vinland Sagas. Ref kills Thorgils by splitting his head open down to his shoulders, which seems impossible to me. Ref's house can't be lit on fire because he has devised a system of running water, which I would guess is around the time when the Romans first build aqueducts.
In addition to all of these details, I felt like this stanza on page 604 was a little red flag, alerting the audience that this is more a story than a history: "The stroke this day was struck / I felled the famous man. / I reckon two blows revenged / and hot blood won for the raven. / Such deeds are told in stories, / related by wise men." This is the first reference I've noticed in the sagas of stories actually being told, and of someone acknowleding that those stories are sometimes exaggerated. While there has been a lot of talk about poems and telling the deeds of kings, this specifically points out stories. I feel like this stanza is sort of a self-referencing joke, because the audience would know that this story is more for entertainment than historical or cultural value.
Some other tidbits I noticed included the first mention of homosexuality. It has never been remotely brought up before, so I sort of assumed it was not a concern in this culture. Calling Ref homosexual seemed to have the same insult implied as today, which shows one way in which we have not progressed over the past thousand years. Also, Thorgerd's and Gest's reactions to Ref telling each of them that he killed someone echo Egil's mother's reaction in Egil's Saga, when she says that he is such a good little Viking. Last thing- King Harald is characterized as much smarter in this saga than any other: he guesses the secret of Ref's house, and deciphers his gibberish after killing Grani. Propaganda, perhaps?
In addition to all of these details, I felt like this stanza on page 604 was a little red flag, alerting the audience that this is more a story than a history: "The stroke this day was struck / I felled the famous man. / I reckon two blows revenged / and hot blood won for the raven. / Such deeds are told in stories, / related by wise men." This is the first reference I've noticed in the sagas of stories actually being told, and of someone acknowleding that those stories are sometimes exaggerated. While there has been a lot of talk about poems and telling the deeds of kings, this specifically points out stories. I feel like this stanza is sort of a self-referencing joke, because the audience would know that this story is more for entertainment than historical or cultural value.
Some other tidbits I noticed included the first mention of homosexuality. It has never been remotely brought up before, so I sort of assumed it was not a concern in this culture. Calling Ref homosexual seemed to have the same insult implied as today, which shows one way in which we have not progressed over the past thousand years. Also, Thorgerd's and Gest's reactions to Ref telling each of them that he killed someone echo Egil's mother's reaction in Egil's Saga, when she says that he is such a good little Viking. Last thing- King Harald is characterized as much smarter in this saga than any other: he guesses the secret of Ref's house, and deciphers his gibberish after killing Grani. Propaganda, perhaps?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Week Thirteen: The Vinland Sagas
The introduction to The Saga of the Greenlanders and Eirik the Red's Saga focuses on the ways in which the two sagas are similar in storyline, which I can agree with, but I found the biggest difference between the two was in style. The Saga of the Greenlanders was quite different than most sagas we've read in that it was straightforward and focused, whereas Eirik the Red used the same narrative structure and detail that prolong simple events, like a marriage proposal, to paragraphs or even pages.
These differences resulted in a change in my perception of the story; I try to visualize what I read, and while the events of the stories were congruent, I pictured very different scenes simply because of the style of storytelling. The Saga of the Greenlanders was a lot more vague and fleeting; I pictured the main characters to be a band of travellers who never really settle in a place. There were also a lot less characters to keep track of, as the saga did not go into the usual detail describing every persons' lineage. Eirik the Red's Saga had a lot more dialogue and detail, and ths made the characters seem more settled to me. Even when they are in Greenland, they seem more persistent in establishing farms, because of the details that are omitted in The Saga of the Greenlanders.
Looking beyond the stylistic events, I found these sagas very interesting because they describe the first Europeans in America. I thought their exchanges with the natives proved beyond a doubt that they were in fact in America. There is no way they could have imagined people as savages in a different continent who sound so similar to the Native Americans without having seen real Native Americans. I think this section was also interesting because I remember learning about Erik the Red and Leif Eriksson as these great Viking explorers when I was younger; but they seemed to take the backseat to other explorers, and I wonder why their names persisted above others who undertook the same feats as they did.
These differences resulted in a change in my perception of the story; I try to visualize what I read, and while the events of the stories were congruent, I pictured very different scenes simply because of the style of storytelling. The Saga of the Greenlanders was a lot more vague and fleeting; I pictured the main characters to be a band of travellers who never really settle in a place. There were also a lot less characters to keep track of, as the saga did not go into the usual detail describing every persons' lineage. Eirik the Red's Saga had a lot more dialogue and detail, and ths made the characters seem more settled to me. Even when they are in Greenland, they seem more persistent in establishing farms, because of the details that are omitted in The Saga of the Greenlanders.
Looking beyond the stylistic events, I found these sagas very interesting because they describe the first Europeans in America. I thought their exchanges with the natives proved beyond a doubt that they were in fact in America. There is no way they could have imagined people as savages in a different continent who sound so similar to the Native Americans without having seen real Native Americans. I think this section was also interesting because I remember learning about Erik the Red and Leif Eriksson as these great Viking explorers when I was younger; but they seemed to take the backseat to other explorers, and I wonder why their names persisted above others who undertook the same feats as they did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
