There is an incidental character called "Thorgils" and the story concerning him shows that Gunnhild is indeed old. See Poul Anderson, Mother Of Kings (New York, 2003), Book Six, Chapter XI, p. 516.Gunnhild:
acting psychically at a distance, moves a viking to attack the ship carrying the widow and young son of a king murdered by her son, Gudrod;
loses another son when Sigurd is killed by the hersir whose wife he raped;
is glad to hear that her enemy, Egil, has lost a son;
must satisfy the priest enough to avoid excommunication;
tries to bargain with Christ and his Mother;
must finally have her dishonest servant, Kisping, killed;
continues to seek the death of Haakon Jarl whom she had falsely befriended.
The sooner this story tale comes to an end the better!
3 comments:
Kaor , Paul!
I share your distaste for the ruthless and amoral Queen Gunnhild and most of her sons. I've only gotten as far as part II, "The Brothers," but one thing I noticed was that if, left to himself, Eirik Blood-ax probably would not have gone as FAR as Gunnhild. That is, Gunnhild's intrigues, urgings, and behind the scenes murders pushed Eirik into being more ruthless himself than he otherwise might have been.
However, that is only the impression I'm getting from reading MOTHER OF KINGS, I don't know how historically true that was. It may be only what Poul Anderson thought.
Now that you've finished, or almost finished MOTHER OF KINGS, what are your conclusions about the book? Do you think MOK was a mistake by Poul Anderson, that the topic, Queen Gunnhild, was unworthy of his attention? And, from a more "technical" point of view, was MOK well written? Was the story interesting enough to justify readers persevering in reading it, despite any distaste they may have had for Gunnhild?
I think Anderson's version of the legends about King Hrolf Kraki, in HROLF KRAKI'S SAGA, might appeal far more to you. The Danish kings we see in that book, by and large, were far better people than Eirik Blood-Ax, Gunnhild, and most of their sons. I'm sure you have read that book but I don't recall reading any commentary from you about it.
Sean
Sean,
I have commented on HROLF. It's just that you don't remember over the years! You will find posts on HROLF if you search the blog (top left hand corner). I will link to HROLF posts next time I post.
I hope that my many quotes of descriptive passages show that I think MOK is well-written. The subject is worthy because it is historical and precisely because it is a contrast to other works.
The story has been interesting enough to keep my interest but maybe is flagging a bit towards the end.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Oops! I should have searched your blog for commentary about HROLF KRAKI'S SAGA. Which I'll be doing!
I agree, you do believe MOK was well written. And historical novels often tend to be about admirable historical persons. Not always, of course, as Queen Gunnhild demonstrates. It is interesting to be reading so much about someone I have to dislike or disapprove of--that might have been one reason PA wrote the book!
Sean
Post a Comment