My own self

Free book! Would you believe it? And by Neil Gaiman!


This is what I thought walking into Outland - the local comic book/fantasy book shop - and realising they had this book laying for free on the counter in relation to something called the "World Book Day". Well, thank you very much indeed.


The book was a quick read, I read it that same afternoon, being slightly under one hundred pages and clearly written for a somewhat younger audience. With this in mind, I really liked it.

I mean, it's hardly a masterpiece of any sort. But it is charming, and Gaiman once again makes good use of his excellent knowledge of Norse mythology (and yes, I feel qualified to judge that) as he tells the short and simple story of a crippled fatherless Viking lad saving the world from eternal winter.

The book is consistently entertaining and engaging, and kept me interested from the beginning to the end. There were no surprising twists to mention, no big and shocking reveals, but it still, somehow, sucked me in and kept me turning the pages until it suddenly was done.

I should imagine this is an excellent bedtime-type of book to read to children while keeping the adult reading it out loud entertained as well.


I didn't pay one dime for this book, but whomever did, I thank them. It was well worth the money.

In 3D!

This is, by the way, the first post I've made on my new computer - my old laptop's screen died some weeks back, and I've been using the tv-screen as a substitute solution since then. Just a random FYI, also explaining the lack of posting in recent days.


Anywhos!

I quite liked it. As far as I gather, not having read the poem myself, the original's basically your run-of-the-mill-epic-hero-tale. Guy encounters monster. Guy slays monster. Guy encounters another monster. Guy slays this monster too. Guy lives happily as a king for a number of years, and then encounters a third monster that he dies while slaying. Guy's name lives on forever in song, 'cause he totally rocked with the monster-slayage.

So this is what I expected. I expected it to be well done - the script's done by Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman for Woden's sake - but I did not really expect that they would flesh it out like this.

What they've done - and, from what I can tell online, quite well - is they've opened up every bit of the story the poem doesn't describe, and added drama, twists and texture there. That way, the movie is quite different from the original legend, but it never really contradicts it either. Which sounds ingenious to me, and which will give them an extra boost in my rating of the movie.

Visually the movie's an interesting experience, everything being digitally animated despite most prominent characters being very heavily based on their actors in their looks. Add to this the 3D, and it's... different. I find that a lot of people complain that the CGI-people were too well done - so well that you noticed the few glitches way more than you'd like to by contrast. I get that. But I didn't think they were THAT well done. It was impressive, sure, but they did not really have that effect on me. The fake-looking-faces here and there bugged me very little, when at all. I think I might just be better at accepting the visual paradigm at face value than most, though. I'm, like, "oh, so it's CGI. 'Key." If something then looks very CGI - that is, looks very fake - I don't really respond that negatively. I'm expecting it.

The 3D was nice, but kind of superfluous. It served no real narrative purpose, and while making the odd action-scene here and there way more interesting, it was only really taken advantage of in the grand opening scene. In the more mellow dialogue-scenes, it was pretty redundant and didn't really add to my experience of the movie. Still, it was refreshing, and in the odd scene here and there it did improve things.

I quite liked this. I see some people compare the "I am Beowulf!"-scream to "This is Sparta", and this is lot like 300 in mood. Not in plot or really even dialogue, but in mood. They are both predominately pre-Christian tales with pre-Christian values and pre-Christian ideals, and they makers of both movies seem very aware of this. If you're expecting an epic legend of infallible heroes with just enough modern complexity and drama to make it interesting added in, you should go see this. If you're expecting something else, then I don't know. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't. Let me know, 'key?

A strong 8/10

So, I'm on my first year of my master's degree, this term being the boring compulsory shit. Next year is the writing of the actual master's thesis. But next term is all up for grabs, I can do almost whatever I want with it. Hence my total lack of making my mind up. Keep in mind that no matter what I'll do, these three suggestions are all full-time suggestions but that I'll still take an additional course (in Norse Religion, I've always wanted to and this is kind of my last chance for a long while) bringing the total workload up to 150% in all scenarios).

So... next term... should I...

A. Take fun courses that I know with reasonable certainty I'll get good grades in and learn useful stuff in, but that won't in any way alter or improve my range or depth of knowledge - for instance, should I take courses in, say, Archeology, Rhetorics, Philosophy and/or Classical Literature to improve my knowledge of the Ancient Mediterranean world and supplement the courses I have in Religious Science and History? This is what I WANT to do from a short term-perspective, as this would be both fun and interesting and relatively easy work-load wise. It would, however, limit my ability to write a particularily "serious" master's thesis, as I would not be able to discuss any aspect of any primary source in its original form. Most likely, this would lead to me writing a "fun" assignment on, say, the uses of Ancient Greek religion in modern comic books, for instance, which while fun I'm doubting will really get me anywhere afterwards.

B. Take Classical Greek - that is, the language. Upside is, this'd allow me to work on Greek mythology, which I find to be fun. Downside is, I have no idea whether or not I'll do okay in this, and I know it'll be a lot of work. Upside is, beyond the having great use for some insight into the language as stated above, having some minimal knowledge of Classical Greek is more or less expected if you write your master's thesis on Ancient Greece, and this way I'd not feel like a complete idiot every time someone expected me to know something I don't.

C. Take Latin, full term. This would basically be choosing to work on Roman religion instead of Greek, but that would maybe not be so bad - due to having had a course in the history of the Roman Republic, I feel much more familiar with Roman history anyway. It would mean re-taking a course in Latin I already have before continuing with new stuff, but that might be smart, as I don't remember any of it.

D. Take Latin, half the term as well as one of the fun courses from A. Upsides would then be same as in A and C above, only assuming of myself that I'll remember stuff from last time I took Latin so I won't have to re-take it. However, while this sound enticing, I'm thinking that it might end up being very taxing work-load-wise...

E. Combining B, C or D with attending a lot of lectures from courses in A throughout the term, but not signing up for exams in them.

F. Combining B, C or D with signing up for a couple of A-exams without compulsory activities and attending their lectures throughout the term, but not do any reading or book-purchasing at all and show up for the exams just for the heck of it.


Any suggestions? B&C would be the smart choices, A the fun choice, D and F the attempted compromise combining the best of the two, and E is more of an ideal I won't be able to live up to as there's no way I'll have the self-control to attend lectures I won't have exams in on a regular basis.

I'd really like some input, who knows, maybe some of you'll say something which'll be all helpful. Stranger things have happened...

Look what I found! (Those of you who can read Danish (or better yet, one of the original Faeroese versions) should click the link and read before progressing)

Gives a very interesting view of Loki, this, as well as placing him in the interesting context of one out of three gods where the other two are two of the three Norse creators of the world. ('Cause that totally gives me more shakey grounds for considering Loki to be another name for Lodur, the third of the Norse gods who created mankind out of drafting pieces of wood. Which, you know, is awesome.) What's also interesting (and supporting my stand on this, as Lodur is a seemingly far more benign entity than what we know of Loki) is how Loki is more patient and benevolent than his collegues in dealing with humans, helping them even when they fail to obey his commands to the letter. (Also interesting; he's the only one of the three that forsees this eventuality and bothers with designing a backup-plan)


It's odd what some random wikipedia-surfing can make you stumble over. Not only this; but also a nice 18-page essay on JSTOR on the view of Loki in Germanic religion, which I'll read as soon as I find the time and energy. Hee! I'm happy.



Happy, I say.

I'm trying to make sense out of my education by trying to focus my courses towards the classical era, that is, classical Greece and Rome, this upcoming term. I just hope they offer enough interesting specialization-courses from the era this fall that I can pull that off.

From before, I have the following courses covering the era in entirety or part:
RELV105: Ancient Religious History of The Mediterranean and The Middle East, and Norse and Sami religion. (Relevant pieces: Greek Religion, Roman Religion, Hellenistic Cults, Egyptian Religion, and possibly Mesopotamian Religion)
RELV250: Religion in the Classical World (Pretty much all of it relevant, obviously, this is basically specialization in the Greek, Roman and Hellenist pieces of RELV105, plus early Christianity)
RELV102: Christianity, Judeaism and Islam (Relevant pieces: the former two, especially Christianity, in the most ancient parts of the religious history)
HIS101: Overview of Anicent History (most the first third of the course, focusing on the Mediterranean world up 'til the fall of the Roman Empire)
HIS114: The Roman Republic (the entire course, obviously, relevant)
LAT101: Elementary Course in Classical Latin (though I know too little to actually make use of it, this is, of course, all relevant)

So, that's quite a bit, really, and it's the closest I get to there being a system to my degree. Of course, I have a lot of other courses which doesn't fit at all, but...

So, any thoughts? The plan right now, then, is to add on two more relevant history-courses this fall, and then apply for my Master's degree, either in history or, more likely, in religous science.

and it's just as much of an honour every time.

He quotes Heimdal's reaction to Loki's suggestion that they're good friends and he should let him in, the quote being "Me skal DREPE kvarandre ved Ragnarok, din orm!", which translates into something like "We're going to KILL each other at Ragnarok (the End of the World), you snake!"



In some ways, mythology-inspired jokes often write themselves, I find.

And again by Olaf. From an MSN-conversation, it even contains a somewhat self-contradictory element, but oh, well, it was a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing.

We had been joking around on the Norwegian name "Bernt" (which I connotate mainly with Bert, the yellow, grumpy guy on Sesame Street, as that's his Norwegian name) placed as a god's name in a very serious context, and this was the result (slightly edited for publication) :

Olaf Moriarty Solstrand says:
THIS WINTER ...
ODIN.
ALLAH.
VISHNU.
ZEUS.
BERNT.
AND JAHVE.

ALL UNITED FOR A GREATER PURPOSE, FIGHTING TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST TIME TO STOP THE ONE THING NONE OF THEM CAN HANDLE ON THEIR OWN.

«RUBIK'S CUBE.»
COMING SOON TO A THEATER NEAR YOU.
Grieving Loki - "Veronica Mars is smarter than YOU!" says:
FLASH
Vishnu, sitting beneath a single lamp in a dark room, staring desperately into the camera: "I did the blue. I did the blue. I did the blue."
FLASH
Zeus, in the same room, helpless, being beeped over as he mumbles to himself: "Fuck. Fuck. ... Fuck!"
FLASH
Jahve, this time, sitting in the same room at one side of a small table, Odin on the other. "I've done the green."
"So have I."
"The red, we must solve the red!"
"We CAN'T!"
FLASH
Bernt, shaking Erling's badeand at the camera in silent fury: "YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO US!"
FLASH
Vishnu again, whispering in fear, as a throbbing heart-beat grows louder in the background:
"The cube.



It's turning."

FLAAASH


RUBIK'S CUBE.
Coming soon to a theatre near you.





The quote, of course, is "Bernt, shaking Erling's badeand at the camera in silent fury: "YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO US!", the contradiction being shouting and silent fury. Maybe he did the silent fury first. (Oh, and "badeand" is Norwegian for those yellow rubber ducks for bathing with, and Erling is the Ernie from Sesame Street who owns such a duck.)

Obdormio was asking me for some advice on Gandalf's connection to Odin on a paper he's writing (damn, that guy gets all the nice ones!), and one thing leading to another, I find I've got plenty of ideas on the subject, and I want to get them down on paper (or computer screen), collected in one place.

Thus, this post was born. (Well, allright, there was another incident involving Terje serving as midwife, but we'll let that lie, not because it was nasty, but because I just made it sound nasty, and I don't want to shatter your illusions; I hear that's mean.)

Now edited to include some points I brought up in the comments



There are a lot of similarities between Odin and Gandalf, first and foremost, maybe, their appearance. Both are elderly, bearded men, depicted often as a sage wanderer with a long-brimmed hat and a staff in one hand. Both go by a vast amount of various names, two of them, as the title of this post demonstrates, rather similar.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Gandalf (SPOILER FOR LORD OF THE RINGS, PEOPLE! (as if anyone reading this hasn't read LotR)) dies. Gandalf comes back. Gandalf has acquired new strenght - the added blessings of the Valar, and a shiny promotion.
Odin dies. (He hangs himself) Odin comes back. Odin has aquired new strenght - the knowledge and magic of the dead.
Now, I do realize that Odin isn't the only mythological and/or religious figure to die and return - far from it. Jesus, I hear, did something along the same line. Jesus died for others, and after his return, his function is that of a saviour. While Gandalf, too, died for others, and Odin didn't, and so obviously Gandalf has elements of Christ in his character, but it isn't Gandalf the White who is the saviour of Lord of the Rings. That is, if anyone, Frodo, and this post isn't about him. Yes, Gandalf returns, and yes, Gandalf kicks badguy ass, but he doesn't really save anybody until AFTER everybody is saved by Frodo, Sam, and Gollum. Then he gets to "save" Bilbo and Frodo by shipping them with him to Valinor. Jesus-element you might say? Maybe, but also very much Odin.

Odin is a god of transition. There is a reason for the Romans considering him a version of Mercury and Hermes, the Roman and Greek gods of messengers, transitions and travel between planes of existance. Odin is the god of war, the god of death, the god to whom you travel after you finish your life's task in battle. Like, more or less, Frodo did in Lord of the Rings. So when Gandalf brings the "fallen" (not technically, I know, but come on, the guy was done) hero to the blessed realm of Valinor, this could easily be Odin greeting the fallen warrior in Valhalla.

I mean, "Valinor" - "Valhalla", come on.

Then there's the horse. In Norse myth, there is one supercalifragilisticexpialidocious horsie, and that's Sleipner, the eight-legged horse of Odin who can run like the wind. In Lord of the Rings, who rides the Horse To Rule Them All (aka Shadowfax)? Who is the only one he'll let ride him?

Why, Gandalf, of course.



Allright, so we've established, there are similarities. But surely, Gandalf as Odin isn't just taken out of context and placed in Middle-Earth?

Of course not. He brought his brother.


Saruman, in the story, is widely known for two things - his mind (Saruman the Wise) and his supernaturally quick and convincing tongue.
Saruman, outside of the story, in real life, as a character, is known primarily for one thing - treachery.
Saruman is the brother of Gandalf - not a real brother, but as close as you get. Saruman considers himself the smartest guy around. He is arrogant, and speaks with contempt of those he considers beneath him, like Radagast the Brown. Saruman is a good-guy, at first, but he isn't afraid of dabbling with the dark power Sauron, being convinced they can't touch someone as clever as him. And Saruman creates evil creatures to fight the right order of things.

Any of this sounding familiar?

There's this guy named Loki...

Loki, in the myths, is widely known for two things - his mind (Loki the Clever) and his amazing ability to talk his - and other's - way out of any situation, or talk others into any situation.
Loki, outside of the myths, in real life, as a figure, is known primarily for one thing - treachery.
Loki is the brother of Odin - not a real brother, but as close as you get. Loki considers himself the smartest guy around. He is arrogant, and speaks with contempt of those he considers beneath him, like Bragi, or Heimdall. Loki is a good-guy, at first, but he isn't afraid of keeping contact with the chaotic powers of the Jotnir, being convinced they can't touch someone as clever as him. And Loki spawns chaotic creatures who someday will threaten the right order of things.

Saruman and Gandalf is frequently described as being similar in appearance. Loki and Odin, while not a widely accepted theory, have by some scholars been considered to originally have been the same divinity due to their very similar character-traits, pre-norse mythology.

And both Saruman and Loki, while having done terrible deeds, didn't turn openly against their previous allies until Gandalf and Odin, respectively, gave the order - Gandalf stripping Saruman of rank, Odin sending the Aesir after Loki to capture him. Both are reduced to pitiful fates - one a beggar, the other a tortured captive - but both gain one last petty stab at their former brother, and in their small, pitiful state, neither reaches high. Loki, after making some earthquakes, gets free and dies killing Odin's son Heimdall. Saruman scourges the Shire, the land closest to the heart of his old brother.


Gandalf and Saruman don't have monopoly on maybe being Odin and Loki, though. Another character of LotR who could be seen as Odin is Frodo, but there, the comparison isn't as obvious, though I think I could make a case for it. If he is, then Gollum, I'd think, is Loki.

There's a third couple of brothers who shadow Odin/Loki and Frodo/Gollum - Faramir/Boromir (Or possibly Aragorn/Boromir). Of the three treacheries in LotR (I'm not counting Grima's here, as it doesn't fit ), all traitors are coupled with a brotherly character who either identifies with or are from the outside identified closely with the traitor. Frodo sees himself in Gollum. Aragorn sees himself in Boromir, as does Faramir. Gandalf and Saruman are, as mentioned, time and time again mentioned as similar.

It is of course unlikely that this has been conscious on Tolkien's part, but there is a trend, here. The odd thing is in none of these couples - Saruman/Gandalf, Boromir/Faramir, Frodo/Gollum - the dominant part responds to Odin, the dominant part in the Odin/Loki-pairing. Always, the strongest is the one to fall, as Loki, and the weakest the one to meet the challenge and stay true. The exception here would be in the Aragorn-Boromir-pairing, which is truer to the Odin/Loki-pair in this respect - Aragorn is, to the outsider, clearly the most capable (though Boromir is by no means incapable) of the two, but to Boromir, he is the one who sees most clearly. Just as for Loki, he is convinced he knows better than his older "brother".

But all in all, if there is one clear Odin-Loki-parabel in LotR, it is to Gandalf and Saruman. Now, of course, there is a hole in this theory. A rather big one.

You see, Loki had yet another connection to Odin.

And, as far as Tolkien has told us, Saruman wasn't the mother of Shadowfax.

Not nearly as good as "Asterix and Caesar's surprise", but then again, that one's utterly brilliant. Not quite as good as "Asterix in Britain", "Asterix and the Big Fight" or "Asterix and Cleopatra", and slightly less funny than "Asterix the Gaul" but way better drawn. "Asterix in America" I've only seen in Norwegian translation, and it was such an unusually horrid Norwegian translation, I will refrain from comparing with it. "Asterix and the Twelve Challenges" (or somesuch, I'm guessing at the English title here) is worse than everything else, despite being crammed with lots of funny scenes, as it has a horrid and illogical premise and ending. Thus, "Asterix and the Vikings" is better than that one, albeit not nearly as funny. The live action-movies, well, the first one was okay and while the second one was totally awesome, most of its qualities were not the kind of qualities I usually think of in relation to Asterix - it has humour, but mainly very Pythonesque humour, something I don't usually think of as "Asterixian". So I won't compare with those, either.


Anywho. The movie itself. The basic premise is as brilliant here as it was in the original comic book, but I think the comic made better use of it. The movie is very unbalanced, being horribly childish and (to me) boring in some parts (though I accept that this is because it is intended for children ) and very amusing in others. The drawings and the animation were very well done, in traditional Asterix-style, I'll rank them fourth of the Asterix-movies, together with "America", after "Caesar's surprise", "Britain" and "the Big Fight". The addition of a new character, the daughter of the viking-chief, felt unnecessary and forced, but I guess it wasn't too badly done. The main villain, a sleazy Viking priest, could have been better done, though, he was neither amusing, creepy or cool enough to have a real impact. As he was, he reminded me of the prophet of "the Big Fight", only less cool and freaky. And also, he was an unnecessary piece of historical sillyness, much like the horns on the Vikings' helmets. There were no male respected practitioners of magic among the Vikings, and no order of priest other than the chieftains. Not to my knowledge, anyway. And I've looked.

Anyway, a decent children's movie, and okay entertainment, but not much more, which is sad, as Asterix can be much more, and often has been so in the past. Still, it could have been far, far worse.

5,5/10

Fucking Elves.


They've made a caricature. Of me as an elf, as if my degredation wasn't complete enough by their giving me RED hair. RED!


LOGI is the guy who is all fire and lunchables! Me, I'm not too big with the dramatics, I can style my hair without going all elemental. True, I'm described as "fair", but first of all, Snorre never really knew what the My Daughter he was talking about - being a Christian and all - and second of all "fair" can actually mean "blonde", too, it doesn't necessarily put me down as a redhead once and for all.


But the main travesty here, of course, is the elf-bit. Yes, I'm leaner and slightly less brutish than these other chaps strutting around in my neighbourhood with their "Omniscienter than thou" (puh-lease. Like I can't go throw away one of my eyes if I ever need to see it all. Which I don't, by the way. Anyone who has seen Freyr skinny-dipping in the early spring... suffice to say, at that point, I'd tear both my eyes out for far less than omniscience. Hel, I'd settle for an omnious scientist in those circumstances) and "Look at me, I've got a big hammer without a proper shaft" (I would point out that I got him that hammer, but it'd seem so damned petty, so I won't) - attitudes, but that's not saying a heck of a lot, as these chaps could go to the finals with the Yeti and the Bigfoot and the Titanic Toe and whomever in the Hairiest Freaks Alive-contest. That doesn't make me a bloody elf. And it sure as helf doesn't make me a bloody elf with my hair on fire.


However, I do consider growing a goatee.





As if this horrible shock wasn't enough, my dignity has been further stamped upon, as the sodding Trolls have joined in. Apparently, I'm rather big in their pantheon, and they found it insulting to see me portrayed as an elf. (On that at least, we could agree. Fucking Elves.) Therefore, they've went ahead and made their own little picture of me, adding injury to insult. I mean, honestly, while my skin may not be quite as extravagant as that fairy (no offense to the Tuatha Dé Danann intended) Snorre claimed, I do not look like my face has been carved out of a sodding tree. My eyes do not glow (except when people dingle money in front of me, but that's hardly a situation for fair assessment), and while indeed strong and awesome, my teeth aren't that sharp. Years of apple-eating gets to you, you know, dulls 'em down.

Seriously. One could get iconoclastic for far less than this.



The only thing that could be worse than this would be... I don't know, maybe if the Humans came trotting along. Yeah, yeah, that'd probably be horrible. They'd probably be making me into some silly super-villain dressing in green pyjamases and wearing some strange horns only found on some especially silly Texas-bred cattle or something. Without a goatee.

Luckily, even Humans can't possibly be that blasphemic.

Despite almost none of you bothering to lend me support in this meaningless endavour, I finished! (Many thanks to Obdormio, though! Yay!)


Hm, obviously, that's too small for anyone to read anything out of it... it still looks damn impressive, though... To see it at a readable scale, click here.

Feel free to comment. As for the messy look, well, this is a messy thing to map out, and I had no program suited for it but paint.

I've been plotting away on this Norse-god-genealogy-map-thing by the aid of Godchecker, Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Mythica, Google, my over-active imagination, and my endless desire to do everything but the things I should be doing. (Feelin' creative, Loki? Then finish your damn "book"!) I'm going with something like 60% true mythology, 10% rip-off-theories of a diverse selection of professors, and 30% how I think things should be. (Yeah, I know, I totally shoulda done this thing 20-5-75 instead ) Oh, and I work from the assumption that all polytheistic religions to which I have even the slightest insight are real and co-existing, with the exception of most Roman and Greek gods which I've combined into one pantheon. This means that, on occasion, non-Jotnir, non-Aesir, non-Vanir, non-Dwarven, non-Elven (sheeesh, these northerners had their share of god-like creatures!) gods and demons will appear in the genealogy, as I find it unrealistic that there won't be physical relations between some of these "people". After all, many of these are highly promiscuous individuals.
Also, because it felt natural, I'm assuming Norse mythology's mysterious Elves that apparently had such close relations with the Vanir and the Teutonic Elves (the ones ruled by Oberon and Titania in Shakespear's "A Midsummernight's Dream") are one and the same. Not that any of this stuff is likely to be of any great importance on the point I'm currently pondering.

The problem is, as I make this genealogy I need to find explanations to one big issue - where are all the female Aesir coming from? Most of the males are identified as related to Odin, one way or the other, but the females are, apart from Freyja (and possibly Sif) who originally is of the Vanir, seemingly appearing out of nowhere. So what I'm doing, with a few exceptions like Loki's wife Sigyn, is I'm making a branch of descendents from Odin's grandfather Buri with another Jotnir woman than he had Odin's father with. This gives me a decidedly non-Jotnir branch of creatures Odin would readily accept as Aesir, but doesn't have (too) close relationships with him - this is important as Aesir, unlike Vanir, don't wed close cousins. In my present table, Odin's wife Frigg comes out as the eldest daughter of the half-sister of Odin's father - half-cousin, if you want. Now, this might seem rather close, but I'm considering that this is a scarcely populated Dawn-of-Time kind of deal, most people are related due to everybody descending from the same handful of Original Beings. I figure half-cousins are plausible. I give her siblings and cousins like Nep, a god I can only find one mention of - as Baldir's wife Nanna's father - but who clearly isn't a Jotnir. By marrying them of to the Vanir, the genealogy of whom we know very little, and anonymous Jotnir, I'm suddenly getting explanations for gods popping out of nowhere.
As for Sigyn, I'm trying to make her character (yes, that's right, I think of these mythic enteties as "characters" which I can play as I like with, sacrilegious to be sure, but hey, if they want to smite me for it, nobody's stopping them) more prominent (partly due to my fascination with her husband) and thus I'm giving her more of a mysterious background. I'm letting her mother be some anonymous Jotnir (with the implication that it might be an important Jotnir in disguise, maybe Gullveig) and some unknown entity. For the time being, I'm thinking of maybe using a mesa-level Fallen Angel as her father, as I'd like Loki to have certain connections in Hell and that'd be a nice opportunity. Her status as an Aesir I give her by having her been adopted by Odin's brother Vili at a young age and raised among Aesir.

So, what do people who actually read this far think about my solution? (I'm thinking of the "giving Buri a second child"-thing, mostly, as it's among my more drastic elements) Or do you have any questions or comment to the enterprise in general?

I might try to set up a genealogy for known Vanir and Jotnir later, too, if the mood gets me, which should be far easier as the Jotnir is far more numerous and thereby far less interbred, and so few Vanir are known making a table of them should be a piece of a certain kind of pastries.

This is a Random Post TM. You have been warned.

There is no end! Also, I watched Letterman yesterday, something I haven't done in a while, and what was his top ten list? "Top ten reasons to win a gold medal." And what was the top reason? "To deflect stray gunshots from Dick Cheney".

I almost grew interested in a sport earlier this week as I started watching the Norwegian teams in curling on the telly for lack of a better thing to do. It was actually quite fun. Too bad they didn't get to the finals, but at least now I have good reason not to care.

Smallville hit bullseye with a superb episode last week, I think maybe this season's best this far, and that's saying a lot. The guest star was exellent, and both Welling and Kreuk were bearable, even though the seemingly cumpulsory lawn-scene between them was as pointless and repetitive as always. Lex was awesome, and Lionel, well, Lionel is god. Now if I only could get that three-way Lex/Milton Fine/Lionel-battle I've been lusting for...
The episode was thoroughly great, but of course there were some slight bumps in the road. I've already mentioned the damnable lawn-scene, but there's also the fact that I felt this episode underestimated Martha Kent's intelligence - anyone should have seen through Lionel's act after his showing up at exactly the right time not only once but twice. He had to be coordinating it, and Martha should have seen that. Though I guess she's got a lot on her mind right now, so it's not too farfetched. The third problem, if I can call it that, was that they referenced Clark's football-playing-days. It was a well done reference, serving the plot and everything, but by Odin, I do not want to be reminded of that farce! It is bad enough that they degrade the Superman-character in this series by effectively removing his Clark Kent-persona (Clark is not acting clumsy, nor cowardly, and rarely shy) and thus his sacrifice of his personal life for the greater good, but the football-thing was just too much. Honestly.


"It's gonna be a long time before Dick Cheney could feel good about killing small animals again" - Jason Jones, The Daily Show

Yes, it is true. Somehow, I'd forgotten to turn this on, but now, offically, everybody can comment their hearts out here.


Of course, I hope nobody abuse this function by not signing their comments...






“Live,” said Vili,
and the logs drew breath.
“Move,” said Ve,
and the pieces of wood rose to their feet.
“Think,” said Woden,
and the humans laughed.

No, not in the perverted way. I'm simply trying to make a pun, seeing as I'm somewhat annoyed that my brother's friends chose today of all days to ask if he (and myself) wanted to play a round of board-games. Good board-games, like "A Game of Thrones" which we probably will play tonight - usually take time. And tomorrow is the only day during the entire vacation where I have to get to work at nine in the morning.

Conclusion? Faith's a bitch. (No offense intended towards all the Dushku-lovers out there)



I'll probably get only five hours of sleep tonight. Way too little, of course, and it still won't let me stay up as long as I would had tomorrow been almost any other day of the year.





Anywho. Having ranted somewhat about this blasted conundrum, I'll go over to less blog-like-things, to keep in style with the non-blogyness that hopefully encompasses this, er, blog.

SNOW.

It's white, it's cold, and it's damn dangerous when placed in the wrong spots or appears in the wrong amount, but darn it, it's nice. There's snow outside now. Has been for some time. Still far less than it would have been on the twenty-eight of December ten years ago, but that's global warming for ya. Hopefully this will invoke the wrath of Ymir upon humanity and smite them all asunder. (I do like Knox and count myself out for purposes of health. Of course, he died right afterwards...)