Gunnhild will be satisfied if an heir of one of her sons rules as sole king in Norway, yet the family's entire policy and strategy ensures maximum resistance from many others to any such outcome. Not only are there rival claimants. There is also popular outrage which finally overcame Sigurd. See here and here. Guests must be entertained lavishly to prevent them from seeing that it is a continual struggle to sustain the larders that are filled only by oppression and plunder.
Having read the book only once before, I cannot remember the details of the ending so will continue to reread with interest although the endless round of dynastic conflict does become tedious. Poul Anderson, in his narration, continues to show us the beauty of nature that lies open to all - which, if they could see it, is the answer to all of the characters' problems.
10 comments:
Kaor ,Paul!
Exactly! Queen Gunnhild seems totally unable to grasp that the amoral and ruthless methods she used for advancing her ambitions for her sons were why they were facing so much opposition, from high and low, in Norway. Conciliation, moderation, scrupulous respect for law and custom, limited and JUSTIFIED use of force, etc., seems beyond Gunnhild's understanding.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I did some checking up online about Queen Gunnhild, and I now have to wonder about the accuracy of the account we see of her in MOTHER OF KINGS. Wikipedia said the sources for many of the events of her life that we see in MOK are of uncertain origin or veracity. Plus, I read that many of the Icelandic sources are biased against her. Which again raises doubts.
So, I conclude Poul Anderson had to make choices deciding which events were most likely to be historical. And, considering how flawed we all are, I think he probably made the most likely correct decision: that Queen Gunnhild was a very bad woman.
Sean
Sean,
The 3rd and 4th paragraphs of PA's Afterword to MOK are illuminating.
Another thought: imagine reading a fictionalized account of oneself!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I looked up the third and fourth paragraphs of PA's "Afterword" for MOK. And I think he is right to stress that, in fairness, Eirik Blood-ax and Gunnhild were really no more vicious and ruthless than was all too commonly the case in those days. Or even that Gunnhild was a witch.
Indeed, PA stressed that the affection they had for each other and their children speaks well of them.
Apparently we owe to Egil Skallagrimsson the story about Gunnhild being daughter to a chieftain of northern Norway and being taught magic by Finnish sorcerers. Considering how he and Gunnhild were bitter enemies, anything he says about her has to be treated with caution.
If I was to criticize any of the choices PA made for MOK from his sources, it would be for having Gunnhild NOT be a daughter of King Gorm the Old of Denmark. And Poul Anderson admitted that Gunnhild being a Danish princess was more likely than her being a daughter of a northern chieftain.
Still, there WERE varying accounts of Gunnhild's origins. So, PA had to make a choice on which account to use for his book.
Since I do believe there is an afterlife, it amuses me to wonder if the shade of Queen Gunnhild actually read MOTHER OF KINGS! And it makes me wonder what her marginal notes would read: "No, it did not happen like this." "Yes, this is basically correct," etc. (Smiles)
I've not read it, but Harry Turtledove also wrote a historical novel about the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian II. And I have read Williams Stearns Davis THE BEAUTY OF THE PURPLE, about Justinian's near successor Leo III.
And many years ago I read a historical novel about Empress Wu of T'ang Dynasty China, who deposed her own son to usurp the throne. The French playright's ATHALIE, about the Queen Athaliah we read about in 2 Kings 11, also came to mind.
Sean
Sean:
Your comment about the notion of Gunnhild in an afterlife reading *Mother of Kings* reminded me of C.J. Cherryh's book *Legions of Hell*, part of a series based on the idea that some very INTERESTING people would've wound up in Hell ... and yes, they have access to literature (and television) from after their time. There's a scene in *LoH* of Gaius Julius Caesar mentioning to Brutus how "a man named Shakespeare" portrayed him speaking a line about cowards dying many times before their deaths.
Hi, David!
Many thanks for your comments!
I was very interested to find out you to have read the HEROES IN HELL books (I have eight or ten of those volumes). Which almost certainly means I have the "Legions" book. And I do recall how eagerly the Romans in Hell adopted modern technology and how Julius and Augustus Caesar were constantly bamboozling Satan!
So we owe to Shakespeare the line about cowards dying many or a thousand times: Dominic Flandry adapted that in "The Game of Glory" to crack that after dying X number of times he got bored with it. And I really should reread the HEROES books!
Sean
Sean:
Yes, that's Shakespeare, although it turns out I misquoted Julius' line from *Legions*: he didn't give Shakespeare's name or quote the "cowards" line directly.
Shakespeare said so MANY things so WELL that he's woven through the English language. Tough Army sergeants taught me to use "burning daylight" as slang for "wasting time." Shakespeare appears to have been first to use that phrasing, in *Romeo and Juliet*.
Hi, David!
Oh, I agree, Shakespeare's plays has been an enormous influence on both English literature and our language. But, alas, I've found extended reading of Shakespeare a hard slog. After more than four centuries the language in those plays is becoming more and more archaic. My loss, I know!
I think Shakespeare's works will need to be TRANSLATED into whatever form English has taken in another century or two. But I should give those plays another shot!
Sean
Sean,
Also, the plays are meant to be seen and heard, not read, just as we don't read film or TV scripts.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
A good point! After all, 16th and 17th centuries English and French playwrights wrote for popular entertainment. I don't think they INTENDED their plays to become LITERATURE. Even tho that was in many cases exactly what happened. I recently had occasion to mention Racine's play ATHALIE, for example.
Given my bad hearing HEARING and understanding plays is not really an option for me. So, I will have to settle for reading them.
Sean
Post a Comment