brokke

bindingfenrir  asked:

Are there any symbols used specifically for Loki with historical proof?

Velkomin(n), vinur minn,
(Welcome, my friend,)

Archaeological records are not exactly my forte, but it does not seem that there are any symbols that were explicitly used for Loki (at least out of those that have turned up in the archaeological record, that is). By that I mean that there are a few possible depictions of Loki (especially of his binding story), but it does not seem that there was a symbol worn in honor of Loki quite like  there was for Thor with Mjölnir. Furthermore, most of the examples that I have located, and that I am going to share with you momentarily, have room for debate in regards to their intended subject matter. Even so, many of these depictions of Loki come fairly late in the Viking Age, after Loki’s image had begun to intertwine with that of the Christian devil.(1)


THE GOSFORTH CROSS:

THIS EXAMPLE YIELDS the most secure depiction of Loki, at least out of the examples that I was able to locate. Yet, even so, this depiction is on a Christian cross. Although containing a substantial amount mythological scenery, they “appear to have been deliberately chosen because they can be presented in accordance with Christian teaching also.”(2) This may be troublesome for people looking for a symbol to ‘revive’ in Loki’s name. Furthermore, even though depicting an older tale, it is generally considered to be a negative tale from a pro-Loki perspective.

Here is the image of a bound Loki on this cross (I have rotated the image):

Here is the tale from the Prose Edda that this portion of the cross presents:

“Now Loki was captured without quarter and taken to a certain cave. Then they took three stone slabs and set them on the edge and knocked a hole in each slab. Then Loki’s sons Vali and Nari or Narfi were fetched. The Æsir turned Vali into the form of a wolf and he tore his brother Narfi to pieces. Then the Æsir took his guts and bound Loki with them across the three stones — one under his shoulders, one under his loins, the third under the backs of his knees — and these bounds turned to iron. Then Skadi got a poisonous snake and fixed it up over him so that the poison would drip from the snake into his face. But his wife Sigyn stands next to him holding a basin under the drops of poison. And when the basin is full she goes and pours away the poison, but in the meantime the poison drips into his face. Then he jerks away so hard that the whole earth shakes. That is what you call an earthquake. There he will lie in bonds until Ragnarok.”(3)

In the image above, all of these details can be seen depicted in a carved from. Loki is shown bound in three places, a snake is above his head, and his loving wife stands beside him holding a basin. The Gosforth Cross is considered to be among the “oldest remaining monuments from the Norse colonies in north-western England,” and is roughly dated to approximately 930–950 (although this dating may now be an outdated claim).(4) A.B. Cook has interpreted this scene, in a fairly middle-grounded approach, as being a parallel between Christian and ‘pagan’ tales, whereby Loki being bound is equated to Satan being bound.(5) This is not to say that Loki is a naturally demonic figure, but rather to explain Loki’s presence on a Christian cross. Regardless of purpose, this image does indeed come from a pre-Christian tale about Loki, and thus is a fairly secure representation of Loki in a historical, visual context.


THE KIRKBY STEPHEN STONE:

THIS EXAMPLE holds room for debate. Some scholars align it with the imagery expressed in the Gosforth Stone, that the bounded figure presented here, likely the Devil, simultaneously invokes a sort of ‘pagan’ imagery that associates it with Loki. Yet, more recent studies have suggested otherwise. John Mckinnell, for example, agrees with Bailey that this “iconography has nothing in common with that on the Gosforth cross nor with such pictures of the bound Satan as those in the manuscript of Junius 11.”(6) Given the inherit insecurity of this example, then, it is most definitely not as secure of a depiction of Loki as scholars had previously thought it to be. Furthermore, it is more likely that this is not Loki, then, but rather a more straightforward depiction of Satan. Still, it is worth including, for it serves as a good example for just how troublesome deciphering these images can truly be.


THE SNAPTUN STONE:

PERHAPS MORE SATISFYING is the Snaptun stone, which was found in Denmark, unlike the previous examples which were found in England. This stone, dating to around 1000 CE (still near the end of the Viking Age), features a face that has a pair of lips with four perpendicular lines etched through it. It is this physical trait that has linked the image to Loki, for Loki’s lips were stitched in a tale recounted in the Prose Edda:

“But when Brook tried to catch him (Loki), he was far out of reach. Loki had some shoes with which he could run across the sky and sea. Then the dwarf (Brokk) told Thor to catch him, and he did so. Then the dwarf was going to cut off Loki’s head, but Loki said that the head was his but not the neck. Then the dwarf got a thong and a knife and tried to pierce holes in Loki’s lips and was going to stitch up his mouth, but the knife would not cut. Then he said it would be better if his brother Awl was there, and as soon as he spoke his name the awl was there, and it pierced his lips. He stitched the lips together, and tore the edges off. The throng that Loki’s mouth was stitched up with is called Vartari.”(7)

And here is an image of the stone itself:

This stone has been identified as a hearth stone, and thus would have had a function associated with fire within the household.(8) Interestingly enough, if this stone was indeed used for the purpose of maintaining a hearth’s fire, its very function would reflect the story from which the reference to Loki may derive. Brokk, after all, was a dwarf and smith — a dealer in fire. This is my own conjecture, but it is worth pondering, nonetheless.


LESS SECURE POSSIBILITIES:

THERE ARE A FEW OTHER OBJECTS worth mentioning here, although they are most definitely not concrete examples of symbols used for Loki by any means. Many people will see what they want to see, so we must take delicate care in interpreting them. The following objects are often reproduced as pendants. Some people already associate these images with Loki, although there is no proof of this being the case. Interpret these as you will, but keep in mind the insecurity that is inherently bound to these images.

The first of these is often called the Gripping Beast Pendant, and there are several variations of these. The one shown below is in the Borre-style, and it dates to roughly the tenth century. It was made in Scandinavia, but found in England. Some people have associated this with Loki’s binding story, which we have recounted above. It is possible that this is an abstract representation of that story, but there are no direct indicators (such as Sigyn and her basin) to make this interpretation more secure. The safest interpretation is that this pendant represents a tangled beast, and not necessarily Loki, especially since intertwining animal motifs are quite common in Scandinavian art.

Here is the description of this object from the British Museum:

“Cast silver open-work pendant with a a Borre-style design of a gripping beast inside a frame further decorated with four protruding animal heads. Suspension loop with central ridge and double median groove. The back of the pendant is undecorated. Small areas of gilding and niello are in evidence on the surface of the pendant.”(9)

Other examples are equally insecure and even have multiple interpretations associated with them. There is a ‘mask’ from Gnezdovo that dates to roughly the tenth century, but some say it could be Odin. It bares similar resemblance to the Snaptun Stone, but there are no stitched lips, which was the only solid ‘evidence’ for it to be Loki in the first place. There is also a winged figure that was found at Uppåkra (Sweden) from the same century, but some believe it may be depicting Völund the Smith,(10) although others have suggested that it could be Loki borrowing Freyja’s falcon ‘dress’, which has been told in the Prose Edda (and in the Poetic Edda, of course):

“Being filled with terror, he (Loki) said he would go in search of Idunn in Giantland if Freyja would lend him a falcon shape of hers. And when he got the falcon shape he flew north to Giantland and arrive one day at giant Thjassi’s; he was out at sea in a boat, but Idunn was at home alone. Loki turned her into a nut and held her in his claws and flew as fast as he could. When Thjassi got home and found Idunn was not there he got his eagle shape and flew after Loki and caused a storm-wind by his flying. And when the Æsir saw the falcon flying with the nut and where the eagle was flying, they went out under Asgard and brought there loads of wood-shavings, and when the falcon flew in over the fortification, it let itself drop down by the wall of the fortification. Then the Æsir set fire to the wood-shavings and the eagle was unable to stop when it missed the falcon. Then the eagle’s feathers caught fire and his flight was ended. The the Æsir were close by and killed the giant Thjassi within the As-gates, and this killing is greatly renowned.”(11)

Depending on how well-known this story was, it is possible that this object could have been made to reference it. Yet, no matter the likelihood, there is always room for doubt. Although I personally am not as familiar with his story, it still seems more likely, and more agreed upon, that this is Völund the Smith, and not Loki. Here is an image of this object, nonetheless:


ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION seems to be a bit of a challenge, especially when there are not always definite physical indicators to work from. It does not help, of course, that I am not a socialist in archaeology by any means. I am far more familiar with literature. Besides, Loki’s physical appearance can vary tremendously; he is, after all, a shapeshifter. He could appear in numerous forms without us necessarily being able to recognize the subtle hints right away (even then, who decides that we are correct in our assumptions anyway?).

To answer your original question, then, there are very few historical representations of Loki with absolute proof; there is always some sort of doubt. Many of these images can, however, be used to build upon. History only provides us with what survives, but, in working with those fragments, new efforts can be made within reason. Meaning is distributed by society (and even the individual), and meanings can change over time. Being historically responsible, though, means making sure that we know the original intention behind a work of art. It would be irresponsible, historically speaking, to project a new interpretation upon an image that was never meant to have such meaning. In short, it is quite difficult work to be confident in our effort to find historical representations of Loki.

I hope my answer has been helpful, although it is definitely not my strongest. There is definitely plenty of room for more academic work in learning more about historical representations of Loki, but such an area is just not my personal destination. If you have any follow-up questions, feel free to send them my way. I would be more than happy to continue discussing this topic with you, if you’d like.

Með vinsemd og virðingu,
(With friendliness and respect,)
Fjörn


ENDNOTES:
1. H.R. Ellis Davison, Gods and Myths of Northern Europe (repr., 1964; London: Penguin Books, 1990), 176-77.
2. Ibid., 179.
Fig.1. A part of the Gosforth Cross showing, among other things a figure with a horn above a bound figure, usually interpreted to be Loki and Sigyn from Norse mythology. Reproduction by Julius Magnus Petersen, published in 1913. Wikimedia Commons. (Edited – Image has been rotated).
3. Snorri Sturluson, Edda, translated by Anthony Faulkes (repr., 1987; London: Everyman, 1995), 52. (Free version available via the Viking Society for Northern Research).
4. Knut Berg, “The Gosforth Cross,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 21, No. ½ (Jan. - Jun., 1958), 28.
5. Ibid., 29.
6.  John Mckinnell, “Norse Mythology and Northumbria: A Response,” Scandinavian Studies
Vol. 59, No. 3, Anglo-Scandínavían England (SUMMER 1987), 331.
Fig.2. Captioned as “The Bound Devil. Kirkby Stephen.” Plate before page 217. The stone features a depiction of a bound, horned figure, sometimes theorized as the Norse deity Loki. Wikimedia Commons.
7. Snorri, Edda, Faulkes trans., 97.
Fig.3. The Snaptun stone, possibly depicting Loki. Housed at the Moesgård Museum near Århus, Denmark. Wikimedia Commons. (Edited – Image turned black and white for clarity).
8. Hans Jørgen Madsen, “The god Loki from Snaptun,” in Oldtidens Ansigt: Faces of the Past (Jysk arkæologisk selskab, 1990), 180.
Fig.4. Borre-Style Silver Pendant, British Museum Online Collection.
9. Description provided by the British Museum Online Collection.
10. Michaela Helmbrecht, “A Winged Figure From Uppåkra,” Fornvännen; 2012 (107):3, 171.
11. Snorri, Edda, Faulkes trans., 60.
Fig.5. Pendant from Uppåkra, likely Völund the Smith.


DISCLAIMER | ALL ASKS | TOP ASKS

UPDATED: 29 APR 2017 @ 10:25pm EST. | NOTES: Added new information in regards to the Kirkby Stone (see section title “THE KIRKBY STEPHEN STONE” and endnote 6 to view these changes).

Lad os brokke os

Lad os brokke os
Lad os fraskrive os alt vores ansvar, som DF gør det bedst
Som danskere gør det bedst
Som mennesker gør det bedst
Lad os brokke os over flygtningestrømmene
Over de farlige farlige indvandrere
Lad os lade som om vi ved en helt masse
Selvom vi ikke ved en skid
Lad os spille høje og hellige
Og pudse vores glorie, med en ordentlig spytklat
For jeg ved bedst
Jeg råber af mit tv når ham fodboldtræneren ikke gør det ordentligt
Jeg kunne ihvertfald gøre det bedre, end en med en uddannelse i det de laver
Lad os brokke os
Og lad os sætte os i en skyttegrav
Kaste med mudder
Lad os brokke os
Mit barn opføre sig ikke ordentligt
Så jeg skriver en vred e-mail
Given skylden videre
Dukker mit hoved dybere ned i min skyttegrav
Råber lidt af en dreng i puberteten
Som overså “reklamer nej tak” skiltet
Fordømmer naboen på deres hudfarve
Forbyder min dreng at lege med noget som har farven lyserød
Forudser at lyserød vil gøre min dreng homoseksuel
For det er det værste jeg kan tænke på
Næst efter et terrorangreb på mit land
Så vi sender indvandrende tilbage til deres hjemland
Og bomber deres hjemland lidt
Så vi kan bekymre os om vores drenge og farven lyserød
Mens vi fortæller piger at alle der siger at de ikke må gå i blå
Er nogle mandschauvinistiske røvhuller
For feminisme går kun ud på at kvinder skal have flere
Og mænd skal have færre
Rettigheder
For drenge må ikke græde
Og “Boys Will be Boys”
Og de kan ikke styre sig omkring en kort nederdel
Og piger har ret til at gå i korte nederdele
Men de skal helst lade være
For man kan godt prøve for hårdt på at være sexet
For piger påklæder sig kun
Og sminker sig kun
Til ære for mændene
For de vil gerne være et symbol for sex
Men det er de ikke
Din fucking mandschauvinist
Lad os brokke os
Og bekymre os for klimaændringerne
Og miljøet
Mens vi spytter vores tyggegummi ud på jorden
Fordi det har mistet smagen
Mens vi sidder i hver vores lokale med hver vores tv
Og lytter til en politiker, som siger at vi er skyld i klimeændringerne
Ja vi er
Det skal vi gøre noget ved
Lad os brokke os
Over at vi skal sortere vores affald
Lad os brokke os
På de sociale medier
Over vores mangel på nærvær
Og lad os brokke os
Over at de hjemløse er hjemløse
Og over at de arbejdsløse er arbejdsløse
For jeg skal helst have for mange penge
Det er ikke nok at kunne leve et godt liv
Jeg skal helst have et overskud
Som går til “mig-fonden”
Men jeg donere til velgørenhed
Så længe det er kræftens bekæmpelse
For jeg kender nogen der har haft kræft
Jeg gider ikke støtte det andet lort
For jeg kender ikke nogen der sulter
Eller hvad det andet nu er
Men jeg donere til velgørenhed
For jeg er et godt menneske
Det synes jeg selv
Jeg synes at de ældre skal have det godt
For jeg bliver en dag ældre selv
Lad os brokke os
Over topskatten
Over kontanthjælps modtagerne som egentlig bare er “samfundsnassere”
Lad os brokke os
Over folk der ikke gør som de vil
Og går med tørklæde
For i Danmark er vi frie
Og det burde være ulovligt at gå med tørklæde
For det er ikke dansk ikke at være fri
Til at gøre som man vil
For i Danmark er vi frie
For i Danmark er vi danske
For i Danmark er vi danskere før vi er mennesker
Helst

Lesson 6c - Introduction to Norse Mythology: The Major Gods and Races (Part III)

At last, we reach the final segment of this lesson on Norse Mythology. This will actually conclude our discussion of Norse Mythology, moving next to something related - spirituality. Following that lesson will be runes. This lesson will cover some of the major races of the Norse Cosmology: Giants, Dwarves, Elves, Valyries, and Norns. These are most definitely not all there is, nor are my words about them nearly enough. However, I feel these are the most popular of creatures with major roles.

If there is anything about Norse Mythology I did not cover that you wished to have seen discussed, please let it be known and I will happily discuss it. There is much more to the topic than what I have touched with these past few lessons. Even what I have discussed lacks the true depth and detail it deserves. However, for the goal of this crash course, I feel it has been a good balance so far. Regardless, I hope you all continue to enjoy these and learn well from them.


Jötnar (Giants)

The Jötnar dwell in Jötunheimr (Giant Land). They are the oldest inhabitants of the Norse cosmology, existing even before the gods themselves. They are no simple bunch and are rather diverse. They are not all massive in size nor are they all hostile towards the gods. In fact, there are plenty of occasions in which the gods and giants have come together. One such example is Njord and Skadi.

Ymir is among the most famous of giants, though he is called Aurgelmir by the Frost Giants. However, when he was killed by the sons of Bor (Odin, Vili, Ve), his blood drowned all Frost Giants except for one household. Bergelmir was the one to survive, and from him came a second race of Jötunar.

Giants are generally regarded as the enemies of the gods (Thor especially fights them often), for the mountains giants will be the ones to cross Bifrost and siege Asgard. However, many giants are necessary in the Norse world, whether in natural phenomenon or in events or marriages. Some allegedly create the world’s wind - Hræsvelgr. Also, although cloaked with suspicion, it was a giant who helped build the fortress at Asgard. Giants should not simply be shrugged off as a source of evil. There was obviously a sense within Norse mythology that the concept of “evil” was not so simple and concrete.


Keep reading

planetlibrary  asked:

You list Thor as one of the aspects of The One's Champion. Would Ronan or Peach be able to wield Mjolnir? Or perhaps would just about any uncorrupted wizard be able to seeing as The Oath is a noble, worthy purpose that's an essential part of them?

Well, first let’s be clear that we are here dealing with a new-myth-overlaid-on-old-myth situation.

In the original Norse myths — specifically the material in the Poetic / Elder Edda and the Prose / Younger Edda — there’s no question that Mjollnir is a very special weapon. It was created on a dare, after Loki had commissioned the two master-craftsman sons of the dwarf Ivaldi to make replacement golden hair for Sif. (As a practical joke, Loki had cut all Sif’s hair off.) They also forged the indestructible spear Gungnir for Odin, and for Freyr they made the magical ship Skidbladnir, which could be folded up and put in Freyr’s pocket.

For reasons best known to himself, Loki then sought out a couple more dwarf-craftsmen named Brokk and Eiti, and bet them his head that they couldn’t make three more wonderful things than the sons of Ivaldi had made. Brokk and Eiti immediately got busy proving Loki wrong.

First they made (built? engineered? created? pick your verb…) the boar Gullinbursti, which had bristles of gold (hence the name) that glowed bright enough to light up the night. Gullinbursti could run faster than any horse, as well as being able to fly through the air and run on water. Loki, in the shape of a fly, and with what Gods only know in mind — besides making them fail in their task so that he could keep his head — kept buzzing around and biting the dwarfs and trying to interfere with the process of Gullinbursti’s creation, but failed.

Eiti and Brokk then forged the gold ring called Draupnir, which magically “dropped” eight other rings exactly like it every nine nights. (I think the word being translated here as “ring” indicates “arm ring”, so this means fairly significant quantities of gold appearing out of nowhere every week and a half or so. Unquestionably a useful thing for any pantheon to have lying around.)

They then started work on a great iron hammer that would be “the most powerful weapon in the world”. The Eddaic explanation of what this implies simply states that the hammer would hit whatever it was swung at or thrown at, and that if thrown it would always return to the thrower’s hand. Useful, especially on the battlefield. Because Loki had been buzzing around again and stung Brokk right between the eyes while he was forging Mjollnir, the hammer came out “a little short in the handle”, but that was its only imperfection.

All the gifts were then carried together to Asgard and were the subject of a kind of committee meeting where they were assigned to their new owners and judged as to which one was best. The vote came down in favor of Mjollnir, which was deemed to give the Gods the best chance of prevailing over the various hostile giants at Ragnarok. And it made sense to give this peerless weapon to the strongest of the Gods, so it was assigned to Thor.  

Note that there’s no mention whatsoever of the bearer/user-must-be-worthy trope here. Which is just as well, as otherwise the whole “Theft of Mjollnir” story told in the Thrymskvitha could never have happened. The poem tells us in its first stanza  that “Thor woke up and his hammer was missing” — from the bedside table, one gathers — “and he went bugfuck.” (Well, that’s how I’m translating vreiðr today.)

Actually it should be more like this:

Thor went bugfuck when he woke up | and found that mighty Mjolnir was missing:

he tore his beard and his hair stood on end | as the Hurler searched everywhere for his hammer.

First thing he said was: “Listen up, Loki, | Mjolnir’s missing, it’s nowhere in heaven:

Nor on Earth either, nobody has seen it. | Mjolnir the mighty has somehow been stolen!”

…And now we get Loki borrowing Freyja’s featherhame to go find out what’s what (because he’s certain from the start that the Giants are to blame), and a (theoretical) arranged marriage between Freyja and Thrym, and plotting and planning, and Thor getting dressed up as a bride-to-be (and whinging about it most ineffectively**)…

…and a trip to Jotunheim, and Mjolnir being brought out to hallow the “bride” (by laying it in “her” lap: YO FERTILITY SYMBOLISM…), and Thor, once he’s got his hands on his hammer again, rising up and killing every damn giant within reach. And then he and Loki go home.

What’s interesting about this, besides the theft itself (managed how? magic? we’re never told), which would naturally have been carried out by someone unworthy — is the implication in the verse that one of the servants or other functionaries in Thrym’s hall fetched in the hammer for the wedding service when requested. So plainly as far as the original mythographers were involved, you don’t need to be worthy, or even particularly strong, to carry Mjollnir around. As for wielding it, it’s going to be more about the user’s strength than the hammer itself.

So now we move ahead seven or eight centuries.* Stan Lee first brings Thor into the comics world in the early 1960s, and various additions start to be made to the basic character. Naturally since Thor is the god of thunder, we get a fair amount of summoning of lightning and storms and so forth in the comic, and Mjolnir starts getting involved in this… which never happened in the old myths as far as I know. Also the whirling-Mjolnir-really-fast-around-your-head-so-that-you-can-use-it-to-fly is a comics trope as well. In the original myths, when Thor needed to travel, he did so in a chariot pulled by the two magical goats Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr (Gurner and Gnasher, more or less). …Hitting the hammer’s handle on the ground to produce a localized earthquake: comics trope. Mjolnir being forged from Uru metal? Comics trope. (Or in the heart of a dying star? Film trope.)

And finally comes the addition which I think probably began in the comics but has become much better known in the films: the concept that one must be worthy in some way or other to use or even lift Mjolnir. And the definition of what “worthy” means is obviously going to be exercising everybody’s minds.

Anyway, let’s step back. The question we’re considering here involves the intersection of the Powers that Be of the Young Wizards universe with not the original Norse god that people in the Northlands actually prayed and sacrificed to — the working man’s god, the god nowhere near as clever as his half-brother but admired for his direct approach anyway, the great power who was nonetheless as doomed as all the rest of his pantheon and who would fight to the end regardless — but the Marvel Comics version of Thor. Who is worthy (by canon definition and in the larger sense) for reasons of his own.

In that sense, the details of how any given YW character would handle the holy Hammer are probably best left to any reader’s own judgment. I would assume that the One’s Champion, if he/she/whatever were to run into Marvel!Thor — either in film or comics format — would find an immediate kinship with him/her on some level***, and that the Hammer (which it seems to me from the films we’re meant to get a sense is a bit sentient) would not object to being wielded. As for Ronan, I suspect he could at very least wind up carrying it around, due to his previous association with the Champion. And if he got too insufferable about it, I suspect that at some point he might turn his back on the Hammer briefly, and on turning back again, find that Darryl had borrowed it and was using it to crack nuts with.

…Hmm, maybe I should ask Walt and Weezie if they’d like to do a crossover.  :)

Hope this helps.

*The Codex Regius in which the Elder Edda was (as far as we know) first written down dates back to the 1200s, but there’s no telling exactly how much older the myths recorded in it were.

** “All the Gods in Asgard are going to make fun of me if I get dressed up in bride’s clothes. They’ll say I’m gay.” “Thor, if you don’t get dressed up in bride’s clothes, pretty soon there will be no more Gods in Asgard because the Giants will overrun the place. So shut up and let me fix this veil.” (NB that Loki is already dressed as Thor’s bridesmaid at this point and has been making a lot less of fuss about it. But then Loki has always been, well, flexible.)

***Or actually the other way around, since the Michael / Thor Power is the archetypal being from whom the Norse God, and in turn the comics / film character, would have been — at whatever distance of times and dimensions — derived: It includes them.

ETA:

@WalterSimonson (chuckle)

— Diane Duane (@dduane)

March 25, 2015

Gospel of Loki: Character list

Characters.

These are the people you’re going to meet in the pages of this book. A word of advice before you start: don’t trust any of them.

The Gods – (aka the Popular Crowd).

Odin – aka One-Eye, Allfather, the Old Man, the General. Leader of the Aesir. Knows how to sell himself (and others).  Would throw his brother to the wolves (and did) for a percentage.

Frigg – Odin’s wife, the Seeress. Mother of…

Thor – the Thunderer. Likes hitting things. Not a fan of Yours Truly.  

Sif – his wife. Nice hair. Also not a fan of mine.

Balder - god of peace. Yeah, right. Known as Balder the Fair.  Handsome, sporty, popular. Sound a little smug to you? Yes, I thought so too.

Bragi - god of poetry. Two words: Expect lutes.

Freya - goddess of Desire. Vain, petty and manipulative. Will sleep with practically anyone as long as jewelry is involved.

 Frey – the Reaper. Twin brother of the above. Not a bad guy, but a fool for blondes.

Mani – the Moon. Drives a cool car.

Sol – the Sun. Drives a hot car.

Sigyn –handmaid of Freyja. Adoring wife. Possibly the most annoying woman in the whole of the Nine Worlds.

Heimdall – the Watchman. Not a fan. Has it in for Yours Truly.

Hoder – Balder’s blind brother. A better shot than you might think.

Mimir – the Wise. Odin’s uncle. Apparently, not wise enough.

Honir – the Silent.  Never shuts up.

Idun –  wife of Bragi. Likes fruit.

Njörd - god of sea. Nice feet. Married to –

Skadi – the Snowshoe Huntress. Not one of my biggest fans. The words “forgive and forget” don’t feature in her vocabulary. Has a thing about bondage. And snakes.

Aegir: god of the storm. Married to -

Ran: custodian of the drowned. Strangely enough, likes to party.

Tyr - god of war. Brave, but not bright.

Others (including: demons, monsters, warlords, freaks and other undesirables).

Yours Truly - Your Humble Narrator. Otherwise known as the Trickster; the Father of Lies; Loki; Lucky; Wildfire; Dogstar and various other epithets, not all of them flattering. Not the most popular guy around.

Hel – his daughter, guardian of the Dead.

Jormungand – the World Serpent, demon offspring of Yours Truly.

Fenris – aka Fenny, demon wolf, also the demon offspring of, etc.

Angrboda – or Angie. Mother of the three above. So shoot me. Turns out I’m not naturally monogamous.

Dvalin – a smith. One of the sons of Ivaldi.

Brokk – a smith. Good at sewing.

Thiassi – a warlord. Skadi’s father. Likes: ice-fishing; torture; foreign travel.

Thialfi – a fanboy.

Roskva – a fangirl.

Gullveig-Heid - the Sorceress. Renegade of the Vanir. Mistress of runes. Shapeshifter extraordinaire. Greedy, clever and spiteful. All my favourite qualities…

Lord Surt – ruler of Chaos. Or whatever you call the lord of a place that, by definition, has no rules. 

Want to know more?

Out February 13, 2014.