There’s a
(thoughtful, well-mannered) kerfluffle going on in the Troth about whether or
not Loki should be hailed in official Troth sumbels. As I’ve said before, my husband Sven is a
Lokisman, so we’re supporting any effort to include the Red-Haired Stepchild. We’ve been called on this, once with outright
hostility, so it’s time for me to put words to digits as to what Loki means to
us and why we hail him.
At the Ragnarok,
Loki is going to lead the forces of chaos against the Gods, riding in on his ship
built of drowned men’s nails. (N.B. It
will sail from the cruise ship terminal in San Diego Bay. Full bar.)
He and Heimdall will kill each other, Loki’s son Fenrir will kill and be
killed by Odin and Loki’s child Jormungandr will kill and be killed by Thor.
It’s hard for me
to wrap my head around the Ragnarok. I
was raised Catholic, but in the southern United States, so anything that smells
like the Book of Revelations gets my hackles up. Sven has no problems with the idea of
Ragnarok except that he and I would be on opposite sides since my Norse deities
are Thor and Frigga. Be that as it may,
I prefer to see Ragnarok as a “worst case scenario” which will occur if Odin
does not reason out a way to prevent it.
Sven disagrees,
saying, “The way I feel about Ragnarok is that it is going to happen, as it is
wyrd for all of us. Whether I *want* it to happen or not is irrelevant. It will
happen, and we know how it is going to play out. As such, there necessarily has
to be at least two sides to the war. Knowing this, this removes the whole
"battle of good and evil" that is portrayed out in Revelation and the
Christian faith.” The phrase “battle of
good and evil” is rather key. There seems
to be an inadvertent tendency in some heathens to frame Ragnarok this way. If Baldr is good and Loki kills him, Loki
must be evil. These are things that need
to be carefully considered. Sven’s
solution is to hand out Bibles and tell such heathens to go to church, but he’s
a Lokean through and through.
Anyway, assuming
Ragnarok as “worst case scenario”, the death of Baldr, if caused by Loki, is
going to be necessary for the new world to come. Baldr is in the one place that is safe for a
god during Ragnarok, and ironically it’s with Loki’s daughter Hel. Furthermore, as cold and frightening as Hel’s
domain is, she has decorated her hall and brewed the mead for Baldr, making it
as pleasant as she can.
In his
thought-provoking novel American Gods, Neil Gaiman reveals Ragnarok as being
the result of Odin and Loki perpetrating a two-man con on the world. This scenario feels so “right” to me it gives
me chills. Baldr must be kept safe, and
the only way to do that is to entrust him to Hel. Frigga won’t hear of it; even the queen of
the gods is a mother, loathe to see harm come to her boy. Odin and Loki work out the scheme: Frigga will do her best to avoid the
inevitable and Loki will make sure that Baldr meets his wyrd.
There are two
further things to point out about the “Loki kills Baldr” story. First, in the Elder Eddas Loki isn’t punished
for killing Baldr. He is chained to the
rocks for airing the gods’ dirty laundry and embarrassing them, as recounted in
Lokasenna. Second, the one who is
actually punished is the blind god Hodr.
This seems off until one notices that there is a second version of the
story, only hinted at in Snorri but developed by Saxo Grammaticus in which Loki
isn’t involved in Baldr’s death at all.
It’s all Hodr, who may not have originated as the blind god he’s usually
described as. In Saxo’s story, Baldr and
Hodr are rivals for Nanna, and Hodr kills Baldr for her. Nanna then kills herself. The punishment of Loki may be a later gloss,
although no one knows for sure. There is
reasonable doubt, as the trial lawyers say.
Loki causes
crises, fixes them, and often has to live with the aftermath. Who got the walls of Asgard built at no cost
to the Gods? Sure, he ended up giving
birth to Sleipnir afterwards. Who
obtained Mjolnir, Gungnir, and the other gifts for the Gods? Sure, he ended up with his lips sewn
shut. Who invented the fishing net? Sure, he was captured because Kvasir saw that
only Loki was clever enough to have created such a thing. And so on.
Loki is the god
of comedy. I’m of the opinion that Loki
has it in for Heimdall because Heimdall, who otherwise has no sense of humour
whatsoever, came up with the idea of dressing up Thor as a bride. Or perhaps he stole the idea. Usually he’s out there making the gods laugh,
often at his own expense. When it was
essential that Skadhi laugh, Loki was there to tie his balls to the beard of a
goat and have a tug of war. I’m sure he
was the first one to say the line, “Comedy is playful pain.” It’s hard to hate the protagonist of so many
funny stories.
Sven likes to
point out that Loki should be patron of attorneys. He invented the legal loophole. He saw to it that the gods got the better out
of their contract with the giant who built the walls of Asgard. He saved himself from decapitation with the
observation that sure, they could have his head—but not his neck. Loki adhered to a weregild judgement while
ridding himself of the cursed ring Andvaranaut.
He fulfills his contracts and oaths while his blood-brother Odin often
does not. Still, he’s Odin’s
blood-brother, and being Asgard’s Attorney (as opposed to Asgard’s judge, who
is Forseti) is possibly why.
Loki is the
“trusted traveling companion” of Thor. Thor
is a forthright guy, a working-class god who is as direct and blunt as the
hammer he wields. Together, he and Loki
fight giants. I’ve heard it said that if
you have a Lokean and a Thorean, put them together and they’ll be best
friends. This does seem to work for me
and Sven. Loki does seem to have had an
effect on Thor; Thor’s resolution of the battle of wits in Alvissmol is
something Loki would have come up with.
Loki is a difficult
god. He’s not easy to understand and
encounters with him are often painful. This isn’t surprising when you consider that
comedies are usually about themes that are decidedly unfunny. Further to this,
Loki is more often than not the catalyst for making sure things happen. He is the crisis that forces us take action,
whether we want to or not. He’s the
blessing in disguise.
You are so write, the Cathlick god is all wrong and actually Satin in discuise. Have you read the true, awthentic King James Vergin Bible, the one writen in 1611? If not, then I can understand you're aposticasy. :-?
ReplyDeleteHave you read the true and authentic Bellows version of the Poetic Eddas? Your god is nailed to a cross. My god carries a hammer. COME OUT OF FALSE RELIGION, Mandy!
ReplyDelete