Okay, so obviously I started with the easiest (and least pressing) thing on my To Do list and have just finished compiling the info for the Heimdall lore fact sheet.
So the thing to do with these is present the information and just the information. Commentary is all right if it helps to clarify facts (usually it's not necessary), but should not include my personal take on the lore. Didn't think this would be a problem.
And then I started on Rigsthula. Yeah, yeah, this is probably the most problematic piece of lore out there--not in terms of interpretation (although that's always something of an issue) but in terms of general ickiness to the modern egalitarian American mind. So the message is really hard to put a finger on because of cultural background.
Anyway, just a quick gripe before I get back to work. (No cold medicine today, only one dose left of the Dayquil and I'm saving it for if I get worse.)
So the thing to do with these is present the information and just the information. Commentary is all right if it helps to clarify facts (usually it's not necessary), but should not include my personal take on the lore. Didn't think this would be a problem.
And then I started on Rigsthula. Yeah, yeah, this is probably the most problematic piece of lore out there--not in terms of interpretation (although that's always something of an issue) but in terms of general ickiness to the modern egalitarian American mind. So the message is really hard to put a finger on because of cultural background.
Anyway, just a quick gripe before I get back to work. (No cold medicine today, only one dose left of the Dayquil and I'm saving it for if I get worse.)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 08:31 pm (UTC)The one piece in it that I think is definiatly old is the fact that Heimdahl taught the Runes to men and not Odin. There are a number of for lack of a better term Indo-European myths where a "minor deity" teaches man things. So in my mind it is in keeping with these traditions that Heimdahl taught men to read the Runes.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 08:52 pm (UTC)That's true, and it's certainly a bias we discussed during the discussion in January, but when I'm putting it down on paper and consciously not discussing those points, I find myself getting grumpy :).
Can you point me to some of those other myths? (I've loaned out my copy of Puhvel or I'd have a look there first. :))
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 08:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 08:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 08:57 pm (UTC)http://depts.washington.edu/scand/rigsthula.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/rig.html
I still think the best context translation is the Larrington translation from I think Oxford University Press.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 09:09 pm (UTC)It's the Bellows translation, which is not bad. Enjoy! :)
(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-04-25 09:19 pm (UTC)