Between Fantasy and Fiction: An Analysis of the Mediation Process between the Prose Edda and Postmodern Fantasy Novels

Between Fantasy and Fiction:

An Analysis of the Mediation Process between the Prose Edda and Postmodern

Fantasy Novels

Master’s Thesis Literary Studies Track: Writing, Editing and Mediating

2

List of Contents

Abstract Page 3

Introduction Page 4

Chapter 1: Snorri Sturluson and the Writing of the Prose Edda Page 9

Chapter 2: The Mythological Isolation of The Silmarillion Page 19

Chapter 3: The Americanised Myths of American Gods Page 29

Chapter 4: The Child’s Perspective of Eight Days of Luke Page 40

Conclusion Page 50

3

Abstract

This dissertation examines the different ways postmodern fantasy novels have adapted the

Prose Edda. The Prose Edda was written by Snorri Sturluson in the early 13th _{century. It has} already been analysed by many scholars, and a worry amongst critics is that by using similar language and concepts used in the myth, adaptations of the work strip it of its identity by ‘stealing’ from the original. By analysing the process of mediation between the modern novels and the original material, my intention is to discover the value and benefits these new adaptations provide. The three fantasy novels discussed in this paper are J.R.R. Tolkien’s The

Silmarillion, Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, and Dianna Wynne Jones’s Eight Days of Luke.

Each novel features a different perspective on the myths from the Prose Edda, as well as a different portrayal of the deities. By comparing and contrasting the differences and similarities between the post-modern works and Snorri’s accounts, this dissertation shows how the process of mediation can affect both the adaptations and the original myths. In each chapter, I first compare the contents of the novels to the Prose Edda and then examine how the adaptations have been affected by the source material, and vice versa. Results indicate that when fantasy novels are intrinsically connected to an older text, this inevitably highlights the relevance and applicability of said text. From the evidence it can be concluded that the mediation that occurs in the adaptation of the Prose Edda promotes its relevance for different readerships in modern society.

4

Introduction

Bringing up the word ‘myth’ in casual conversations usually indicates something that is either not true or refers to a tale of make-believe. In anthropology, mythology refers to a collection of narratives that provide social behaviour and institution, providing morals and values for society, whereas in religion the term emphasises the sacred nature of texts, indicating their divine nature. None of these definitions hold true for gods and heroes which will be discussed in this dissertation. The narration of myths has always played an integral part in human history. Tracing back to over two millennia, humans have created stories of beings greater than themselves. They believed these stories so strongly that they are today still known to us as ancient mythology. While there are many different forms of ancient mythology, the focus of this dissertation will be solely on the Scandinavian pantheon. Scandinavian mythology is quite similar to Greek and Roman mythology, encompassing a large pantheon of gods and goddesses. The stories usually focus on the lives of these deities and their interaction with humanity. While some of these myths attempt to set up a hero and villain construct, these roles are sometimes switched mid-way through the story, or are not adhered to at all. It is not uncommon for these myths to blur the lines between good and evil, and the stories usually do not provide the reader with a moral takeaway, setting them apart from fairy tales and other fables.

Over the past years, many adaptations of these stories have been featured in plays, novels and comics. I will compare and contrast some of the medieval Scandinavian myths, and investigate how these myths created so long ago translate into three different modern adaptations. The focus will lay primarily on fantasy novels for the sake of the scope of the research. These fantasy novels will range from J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy novel The

Silmarillion, to Neil Gaiman’s American Gods, to Diana Wynne Jones’s Eight Days of Luke.

5

chosen these different forms of fantasy to discover a pattern in mediation behind the evolution of the text. First of all, Tolkien has integrated many different beliefs in his work, ranging from Christianity to Norse and Celtic mythology. Tolkien’s novel already features many different references and allusions to Scandinavian mythology, as he has not only appropriated general concepts such as Asgard and the Norse pantheon in his narrative in The Silmarillion, but has also simply copied the names of his characters in many of his other works, such as The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.1 Tolkien’s work is set apart from the other novels, as he only picks bits and pieces from the Edda, without using the mythology in its entirety. While other scholars have previously looked into the similarities between Tolkien and Norse mythology, little attention has been paid to the effects of the mediation that takes place when these myths are adapted into a different mythological narrative. The second fantasy novel, American Gods, does exactly the opposite. Instead of handpicking different elements from the Edda, Gaiman uses the entirety of the myths as a basis to establish his own narrative. Similarly to Tolkien, however, Gaiman also uses multiple religions and mythologies, such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Celtic mythology. In this adaptation, Gaiman immediately establishes a massive difference between the portrayal of the gods in American Gods and the gods in the

Prose Edda, to fit a more Americanised narrative. The last novel which will be discussed is Eight Days of Luke. Similar to Gaiman’s novel, Eight Days of Luke’s narrative is also based

on the Prose Edda in its entirety. This book is written with a younger audience in mind, which is clearly shown in the depiction of the myths and the omission of a lot of violence and graphic descriptions.

Overall, the different processes of mediation as seen in the fantasy novels are quite interesting, as they take medieval myths and repurpose them as a source of entertainment for the current society. Besides being used as an explanation for natural phenomenon, the original

1 Tolkien copied many names of the dwarves mentioned in The Hobbit from the Prose Edda, such as Bifurr, Bömburr, Thorinn, Fili, Kili and Thror (Snorri 7), among others

6

myths similarly acted as a source of entertainment. The main aim of this dissertation is to analyse, compare and contrast the different mediums of storytelling, to investigate how much has changed from medieval to modern times.

The most important part of undertaking this journey is the selection of the source text to which these modern texts will be compared. Although the Poetic Edda is by far the oldest known database with the richest mythology, this dissertation will focus primarily on the Prose

Edda by Snorri Sturluson. I have chosen this version as it contains the greatest amount of

information. The Poetic Edda arguably dates back as far as the 9th century, and it contains source material that Snorri uses in his Prose Edda. As such, the Prose Edda contains more detailed stories which reflect a broader narrative than its older counterpart. According to Harðarson:

The Prose Edda, composed in the early thirteenth century by Snorri Sturluson, contains some of the most interesting philosophical passages in Old Norse literature and, if correctly dated, is the earliest text that includes what appears to be original philosophical ideas attributable to an individual Icelandic author. (61)

This concept of authorship is exceedingly important as Norse mythology spans over such a long time, and its sheer volume of material creates difficulties when adapting, referencing or alluding back to these myths. Another problem that is encountered when studying Scandinavian mythology is that while it is often known simply as “Norse mythology”, the actual origin of the myths span over four countries, including Iceland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Each land, although its contents were similar in broad strokes, told and wrote their version of the myths somewhat differently, with many small details altered. For the sake of consistency, however, I will refer to it as Norse mythology henceforth.

7

A lot of research has been conducted into Norse mythology and the Prose Edda, which means that there is enough information to make an accurate comparison between the myths and the adaptations. However, in the context of a modern adaptation, its readership might not be aware that they are reading parts of a medieval text. I intend to analyse the implications of the reuse of old myths in these modern fantasy novels. First of all, it is important to note that the average reader of a modern fantasy novel is not likely to have read the original Prose Edda by Snorri. Yet the myths and the characters will not appear unfamiliar, as they have been countlessly adapted and retold through different narratives. It is important to investigate how exactly these myths are kept alive through a medium which introduces quite a few changes into the adaptation. While there have been individual comparisons between certain modern adaptations and the Prose Edda, little awareness has been raised on the subject of what the changes in these adaptations imply. For instance, in her book Perilous Realms: Celtic and Norse in Tolkien's Middle-earth, Marjorie Burns identifies and contrasts many parallels between Tolkien’s work and its mythological influences, yet she does not analyse how the medium of a fantasy novel has an effect on the original story. What little research there is, seems to put emphasis on the negative effects that the adaptations can have. Scholars such as Ronald Barthes and Margaret Hiley claim that by reusing the language and concepts from the Edda, the language is ‘stolen’ and the identity is taken away from the primary source. The intention of this dissertation is to look beyond the comparison between old and new works by means of an analysis of the mediation in order to see the effects that the introduced changes can have on the original work. In the first chapter there will be a brief overview of what the Prose Edda has to offer, followed by an analysis of Snorri Sturluson’s life and works. This analysis will serve as the basis upon which the other chapters will be built. The second, third and fourth chapters will follow a similar pattern, each dedicated to their own work, Tolkien, Gaiman and Jones respectively. The chapters will be broadly

8

divided into two sections, one regarding the context of the myth and how it places itself within the narrative, and one section focussing on the stylistic choices in the mediums, and how this has affected its connection to the original works. Eventually, by looking into the mythological framework, this dissertation offers an accurate account of the effects the differences in mediation in fantasy novels can have on the Prose Edda.

9

Chapter 1: Snorri Sturluson and the Writing of the Prose Edda

Despite the fact that it is not the oldest work on Norse mythology in existence, the value of the Prose Edda cannot be overstated. It has previously been established that the Poetic Edda was a great source of inspiration for Snorri Sturluson when compiling the Prose Edda. Snorri was an Icelandic poet and accomplished politician and lawyer around the late 12th and early 13th century. According to Pius Wittman, Snorri was well versed in the northern myths, as well as an incredibly powerful figure in medieval Iceland:

Snorri was thoroughly trained in many branches of knowledge, but he learned especially the old northern belief in the gods, the saga concerning Odin, and Scandinavian history. By a rich alliance Snorri obtained the money to take a leading part in politics but his political course brought him many dangerous enemies. (1)

It seems unlikely that such a powerful figure would spend his time and effort creating such a massive text as the Edda. The first problem that needs to be addressed concerns the authorship of Snorri Sturluson. The main issue is that Snorri cannot technically be considered an author by modern standards at all, as the medieval form of ‘writing’ a text differs highly from writing in modern society. This view of the authorship in pre-modern times is summed up by Gísli Sigurðsson:

It is possible, that many people were playing around with similar traditional forms and none of them identified themselves as the maker or creator of their contribution. This doubt should make scholars exceptionally cautious in approaching medieval texts from an author-based perspective in their quest for the lost originals. (235)

10

Gísli Sigurðsson advised caution when analysing texts such as the Prose Edda, as not only are the author’s intention and opinions unknown, the author himself is unknown. This caution is also advised by Jan van Nahl who states that “[w]e will never know exactly to what extent Snorri was involved in the development of the different versions of ‘his’ Edda” (124). Anthony Faulkes further established this by claiming that there are some parts in the Prose

Edda which Snorri had nothing to do with at all:

It has also been argued that the prologue and the first paragraph and part of the last paragraph of Gylfaginning are not by Snorri, at least in their surviving forms. The prologue contains ideas clearly derived from the Christian Latin learning of medieval Europe, and also includes inaccurate scraps of classical material, while Gylfaginning (like Heimskringla) appears to belong to strictly native Scandinavian tradition. (Edda, xiv)

This obviously does not mean that Snorri did not write other parts of the Edda himself, and there is no denying that Snorri was an accomplished scholar as has been mentioned earlier. Therefore, as Snorri is the only known contributor to the Edda, this dissertation will view him as the main author of the work, and the perspectives reflected in the work are his own. Nevertheless, while the author is established, it is still difficult to understand the exact origin and purpose of the Prose Edda. According to Faulkes, the motive came from a need of preservation, rather than genuine academic interest:

Mythology is a scholarly and antiquarian attempt to record the beliefs of his ancestors, beliefs which were outdated but still relevant for the proper understanding of an ancient kind of poetry which he wished should be preserved and continue to be

11

produced as an important part of the contemporary culture of the Icelanders. (32)

There seems, however, to exist an incongruity between Snorri’s personal life and his literary prowess. For instance, in his introduction for his translation of the Heimskringla, Lee Hollander writes: “For his own contemporaries Snorri no doubt was the powerful chieftain known for his munificence as well as his avarice […] a ruthless intriguer whom it was dangerous to have as one’s adversary” (xv). In an earlier paragraph, however, Hollander describes him as “a historian who in many ways can be compared with Thucydides and in some is in nowise inferior to his Greek counterpart” (ix). Kevin Wanner emphasises this dichotomy even more. He describes Snorri as “unscrupulous”, with a life that was “anything but exemplary”, and that he “led a career of duplicity and tortuous politics” (3). On the other hand, Wanner also describes him as a “literary genius, all in all the greatest in ancient Scandinavia” (4). An image is created of two separate versions of Snorri: a power-hungry lawyer and politician on the one hand, and a literary scholar on the other. Wanner combines the two different aspects of Snorri’s life:

The production of the Edda should be understood not as a disinterested act of antiquarian conservation, but as a strategic practice aimed at protecting the market value of an important but endangered source of capital, preservation of which would have served to maximize Snorri’s overall position in domestic and foreign social and political fields. (7)

It becomes clear that Snorri’s incentive behind the Edda may thus not have solely relied on preserving the older myths. The main consensus among scholars concerning Snorri’s motives for compiling the Edda was to promote both the continuation and appreciation of skaldic

12

verse, as well as the incorporation of the Norse myths into a Christian narrative. Great care was taken to represent Christian tones in the pagan original. Faulkes states: “It is true that the value of the work for historians of religion is seriously impaired by the fact that the author was a Christian who lived at a time when the myths he describes had long since ceased to be believed in” (11). This is further emphasised by Ursula Dronke, who stated that it was “still commonly said that Snorri ‘apologized’ for his native Norse mythology by presenting it as a devilish illusion” (153). It would appear that Snorri does not actually support the ideas and myths discussed in the work, and that the main reasoning behind its creation was preservation through a Christian narrative.

In the next sections, this dissertation will briefly discuss the events in the Prologue,

Gylfaginning, and Skáldskaparmál. Háttatal will not be mentioned, as, for the most part, it

consists of Snorri’s views on his compositions compared to other poets in his time. As the focus will lie mainly on the contents and the stories themselves, Snorri’s views on poetry will not be of major importance in this analysis.

While certainly not the longest or most informative segment of the Edda, the Prologue is intended to establish a framework for the narrative discussed in the remaining sections of the work. In the Prologue, Snorri presents a historical and philosophical background for

Gylfaginning and Skáldskaparmál. As stated before, Snorri was a Christian, and this is the

reason he attempts to fit the Norse mythology into a Christian narrative, beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve and continuing onto the biblical flood:

After Noah's flood there lived eight people who inhabited the world and from them generations have descended, and it happened just as before that as the world came to be peopled and settled it turned out to be the vast majority of mankind that cultivated desire for wealth and glory and neglected obedience to god, and this reached such a

13

pass that they refused to mention the name of God. So it happened that they forgot the name of God and in most parts of the world there was no one to be found who knew anything about this creator. (1)

The Prologue provides a theological explanation for the existence of the myths: As all of humankind forgot about God after the flood, they used their own reasoning to make sense of the world around them through what is now known as Norse mythology. Furthermore, the

Prologue also provides information on the Æsir. The myths have become euhemerized: the

deities are no longer characterised as gods in these stories at all, but rather as humans with superior strength, experience or intellect:

He had a son whose name as Woden, it is him that we call Odin. He was an outstanding person for wisdom and all kinds of accomplishments. Odin had the gift of prophecy and so did his wife, and from this science he discovered that his name would be remembered in the northern part of the world and honoured above all kings. And whatever countries they passed though, great glory was spoken of them, so that they seemed more like gods than men. (Snorri 3)

Snorri even proposes that the Norse deities are actually descendants of the Trojans who migrated to Scandinavia after the war, where they had many children who then became known as gods. Troy is not an illogical choice, as it was seen as the centre of civilisation at the time. Gunnar Harðarson makes the argument that “the Prologue thus positions the rise of the Old Norse religion within the frameworks of biblical narrative, natural religion, and universal history” (62). This is emphasised by Wanner: “[E]stablishing the reality of Óðinn and the Æsir from Troy as founders of northern kingship, politics, culture, and language was a

14

primary rather than secondary concern of Snorri, one that contributed to his efforts to entice King Hákon to become a consumer of skaldic verse, and which occasioned the need for his foray into theology/religious history” (141). This detail again shows how the Edda was written with a Christian narrative in mind.

In the Prologue, Snorri manages to mingle historical facts with paganism as well as Christianity: “Odin had with him one of his sons called Yngvi, who was king in Sweden after him; and those houses come from him that are named Ynglings” (xvi). Through the amalgamation of the mythical and legendary entities such as Odin and Yngvi and historical knowledge about the lineage of Swedish leaders, this strange mixture of fact and myth often makes the Prologue ambiguous for both scholars and first-time readers, and it is often ignored or discarded. According to Marlene Ciklamini:

It is difficult to understand without knowing the distinction between the spiritual and secular interpretation of events and facts, a commonplace to Snorri but unfamiliar to the untrained. Hence the difficulty inherent in the prologue's text, its slow pace, and its superfluity in the enjoyment of Snorri's work lead by necessity to question whether the prologue should be relegated to the appendix. (72)

However, in spite of the lack of attention paid to the Prologue in general, this is exceedingly important for understanding the following sections of the Edda. Alex Novikoff states that dialogue genre and scholastic disputation “should be seen together as part of a broader cultural phenomenon that stresses the verbal and dramatic conflict of ideas as a vehicle of public persuasion and a path towards a deeper understanding of Christian truth” (7). Novikoff implies that the dialogue and discussion in Gylfaginning gain their meaning through the pre-established narrative in the Prologue. This also indicates how important it was for Snorri to

15

remain faithful to both the Poetic Edda as well as his own Christian faith. While the aim was to provide an accurate account of the ancient Norse deities, Snorri realised there was a need to justify the pagan work in front of his audience. Living in the extremely Christian Middle Ages, Snorri must have felt the pressure of his readership to emphasise a Christian framework in which the pagan stories operate. Wanner also therefore describes Snorri as “a poet in search of an audience” (Wanner 74). Nahl summarises that “[a]s the Prologue in the Edda puts it: all pre-Christians could only act within the limits of a pagan worldview” (132). Although it is not a new concept, this interpretation of the Prologue not only establishing a Christian worldview, but also acting as a foundation for the following sections of the Edda is important and will come into play later on.

Gylfaginning is where Snorri truly begins telling the stories of the ancient mythology. Gylfaginning recounts the pagan history from the creation of the world from the body parts of

the giant Ymir, and his slaughter by Odin, Vili and Vé, all the way to Ragnarok, the destruction of the world. Gylfaginning provides all this information through a conversation among four different speakers. The story begins by introducing the king of Sweden, Gylfi, and how he was tricked out of his land. By disguising himself as Gangleri, a beggar, Gylfi travels to Asgard to investigate if the Æsir were more powerful because of the gods that they worshipped. Odin presents himself as three other speakers: Hárr (‘High’), Janhárr (‘Equally High’) and Thridi (‘Third’). Although never explicitly stated, it is clear that the three are Odin, as when all the names of Odin are explained to Gylfi, High, Equally High, and Third are among Odin’s many names. The three speakers state that Gylfi must prove himself to be wiser than they are. This also evidently points to Odin’s identity, as he is a god of wisdom. The contest sparks a long discussion between the two parties, which reveals much information about Norse mythology. This choice to create a dialogue is reminiscent of Plato’s philosophical works, which also include dialogue between different characters to get a point

16

across. According to Nahl “the same applies to Gylfaginning: the dispute between Gylfi and the trinity, although a literary draft, should not be understood as a fabulous illusion. The dialogue form may be an indication of Gylfaginning’s literary self-awareness” (86). The dialogue form serves another purpose; through the conversation, Snorri is able to showcase the similarities and the contradictions between the two parties, demonstrating a “spiral movement of thought” (Nahl 131).

In the conversation, Gylfi begins by asking the three questions, and he is then told about the different myths of the gods, including the origin of Ymir, Odin, Vili and Vé and the creation of humanity. Gylfi learns that the most ancient of the gods is called the Allfather, who is described as the one “who made heaven and earth and man and gave man an eternal soul; the souls of righteous men will live with him in his kingdom while the wicked will be sent to the other place” (Nahl xii). Furthermore, Gylfi also learns about night and day, the rainbow bridge Bifrost, the creation of dwarfs, the Yggdrasill, Asgard, and Ragnarok. Gylfi is given a description of each of the gods and their purpose, which includes Loki and his monstrous children. The description of the Allfather sounds remarkably similar to the Christian God, and this is where the Edda really begins to blend Christianity and Paganism. While Odin is depicted as cunning and base, he is also described as wiser than anyone, as well as being the ‘father’ of everything: “Then spoke Third: ‘Odin is highest and most ancient of the Æsir. He rules all things, and mighty though the other gods are, yet they all submit to him like children to their father’” (21). Nahl agrees: “Gylfaginning assimilates Nordic mythology in a much greater degree to the Christian world view than does the Prologue, which divides its attention between natural reasoning and history” (78). Faulkes also describes

Gylfaginning’s origins and purpose: “It is likely that [Gylfaginning] is intended to present in a

systematic way the entire mythological background to the numerous mythological terms that form part of the poetic language discussed in Skáldskaparmál” (xix). Essentially,

17

Gylfaginning functions as a setup for the final section that will be discussed in this chapter, Skáldskaparmál.

Skáldskaparmál is by far the longest section of the Prose Edda, and it contains much poetry from broadly the ninth to the twelfth centuries, hailing primarily from Norway and Iceland. The poetry is presented in relatively short segments, which Faulkes describes as an early type of anthology of verse, including “mythological, historical, lyrical and other types of verse, selected and commented on by one of the major authors of thirteenth-century Iceland” (vi). Similar to Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál also features a dialogue-based explanation of the myths. However, in contrast to Gylfaginning, it is not humans discussing the gods from their viewpoint. Skáldskaparmál features two gods, Bragi, a god of poetry and Ægir, who is a personification of the sea. Their conversation continues throughout the entirety of

Skáldskaparmál. As has been previously established, Snorri’s writing of the Edda was partly

motivated by politics to introduce a Christian narrative, and partly an attempt to re-establish the prestige of Skaldic verse. Most of the evidence for this can be found in Skáldskaparmál. According to Wanner, Snorri has made a statement in regards to this in the so-called

Eptirmáli or Afterword: “This section, while likely among the last portions of the Edda

written, is placed near the start of Skáldskaparmál in all manuscripts” (120). In this segment, Snorri writes:

And this is now to be told to those young skalds who desire to take the language of poetry and to make for themselves a word-store with old names, or those who desire to know how to understand that which is spoken obscurely: then he should take this book as knowledge and entertainment. (2)

18

Wanner concludes that in this short paragraph, Snorri explicitly identifies an audience for

Skáldskaparmál. This would indicate that Snorri’s aim was to encourage and inspire the

younger poets, and to reawaken their interest in skaldic poetry. Transferring the pagan myths to a Christian narrative allowed him to do this.

Overall, it can be stated that Snorri’s motives behind the Edda were a desire to preserve the mythology and an opportunity to reintroduce skaldic diction to the world. In order to do this, Snorri had to adapt the myths into a Christian narrative. As seen in this chapter, the process of mediation already takes place in the Prose Edda. In order to approach the audience in his society, Snorri needed to make changes to the original mythology to fit it into a new narrative. As such, to analyse the Edda more in depth, the most effective way to discover the interpretation behind a work is to look at its audience. According to Torfi Tulinius:

Indeed, the author knows that the story’s audience will interpret it according to their own experiences, and therefore he can play upon his knowledge of the audience’s world. To grasp the meaning that an author gives a story, it is important to know the world of the audience. (36)

It is important to keep the audience’s demand in mind when discussing the Edda, which will be further discussed below. This process can also be seen the three fantasy novels which will be discussed in the next chapters. John Lurz defines mediation as a framework, which he describes as “a concept with a dual sense as a process of conveyance or transmission and as a procedure by which two separate parties come into relationship” (2). It is this definition of mediation which will be used to analyse how changes can affect the original material discussed above.

19

Chapter 2: The Mythological Isolation of The Silmarillion

As a young man of only 23 years of age, J.R.R. Tolkien had already created a fictional language called Qenya, which he would later feature in his works. As a linguistic genius, having already mastered multiple languages such as Anglo Saxon, Finnish, Greek, Latin and Old English, it was inevitable for Tolkien to begin developing an interest behind the mythology of these languages. David Doughan states: “[t]ogether with his interest in languages there came up an interest in myths and legends of the countries behind these languages and he read eagerly all the old legends he came across” (4). Furthermore, according to Martin Wettstein, whilst reading about these myths, Tolkien observed that England had no mythology of its own (1). This knowledge as well as the fact that Tolkien’s invented language Qenya did not have its own mythology either, led Tolkien to write stories and poetry which told of events and heroes, in order to reconstruct a hypothetical mythological basis for his own language. In these stories, Tolkien copied quite a few concepts and took inspiration from many different kinds of religions and stories across the world, including for instance Christianity, Norse mythology, Celtic mythology, Shakespeare’s plays, and fairy tales. In this next section, I will examine some of the major similarities and differences between The Silmarillion’s rendition of the Bible and the Prose Edda.

As mentioned earlier, Tolkien copied many names, a poetic verse style and the runic language from the Poetic and the Prose Edda. John Gough concludes that “Tolkien took qualities of language, a code of bravery and honor, and many incidental Norse details and absorbed them into a very different world” (3). For instance, in Tolkien’s work The Hobbit, the names of the dwarves, as well as the names of the wizard Gandalf are mentioned by Snorri when describing the dwarves who were created from the flesh of Ymir: “They made many in man’s likeness, Dwarves in the earth, as Durinn said. Dvalinn, Dainn, Bifurr, Bafurr, Bomburr, Nori, Thorin, Fili, Kili” (16). Including these names, a lot of Tolkien’s earlier

20

works such as The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit already reflect quite a few concepts from the Prose Edda. However, most of Tolkien’s inspiration of Norse mythology becomes visible in The Silmarillion. First of all, Tolkien represents different planes of existence in his novel which can also be seen in the Prose Edda. For instance, Middle Earth itself is a loosely interpreted version of Midgard. Midgard, in the Edda, is one of the three planes of existence in the universe. Midgard, as the name suggests, lies in the middle between Asgard and Niflheim. and is inhabited by humans, dwarves, elves and giants. Niflheim is described as a desolate place filled with ice and snow, and it is considered a gate to the underworld. In Middle Earth, Angband is described in a similar way. In The Silmarillion, Tolkien writes:

He [Melkor] took up his abode in the endless dungeons of Angband, the Hells of Iron, for in the War of the Powers the Valar, in their haste to overthrow him in his great stronghold of Utumno, did not wholly destroy Angband nor search out all its deep places. They were black and desolate and exceedingly lofty; and smoke issued from their tops, dark and foul upon the northern sky. Before the gates of Angband filth and desolation spread southward for many miles over the wide plain of Ard-galen. (134)

This is remarkably similar to the description that Snorri gives in the Edda, where he remarks that the wicked and unworthy go to Niflheim, similar to the corrupt creatures that inhabit Angband: “And all men who are righteous shall live and dwell with him himself in the place called Gimle or Vingolf, but wicked men go to Hel and on to Niflhel; that is down in the ninth world” (20). Following this line of thinking, a logical conclusion is that Valinor is Tolkien’s equivalent of Asgard. Asgard, in the Prose Edda, is the home of the gods. Valinor can be seen as both the equivalent of Asgard, as it is the home of the gods, as well as the Christian notion of heaven, which is described as a calm paradise and a place of purity. A main difference is

21

that the Prose Edda suggests the existence of many more realms, such as Muspelheim, Vanaheim and Jötunheim, where creatures such as giants, light-elves and dark-elves. In The

Silmarillion, while versions of these creatures do exist, they all live on Midgard, not on

separate realms.

Besides this, both of the pantheons in the Edda and The Silmarillion have a lot in common: the gods in Asgard are called the Æsir, which can be compared to the Valar in The

Silmarillion. Every god in The Silmarillion fulfils a different duty; Tolkien states that Ulmo is

the god of the sea, whilst Manwë is the god of the sky. Both the Poetic and the Prose Edda have similar deities: Ægir is featured as a sea Jötunn, a giant associated with the ocean, while Thor is the god of thunder and storms. Manwë might also be compared to Odin, as they are both represented as the leader of the gods. Both Manwë and Odin have birds, eagles and ravens respectively, which fly across the world and inform them of secrets. Lastly, the trickster god Loki might be compared to Melkor. Snorri states about Loki: “That one is also reckoned among the Æsir whom some call the Æsir’s calumniator and originator of deceits and the disgrace of all gods and men” (26). Both Loki and Melkor are morally questionable and end up in chains and banished from their respective homes, yet there is a difference between them. While Melkor is portrayed as purely evil and unrepentant, Loki is usually quick to resolve the issue to save himself and others. The main difference is that Loki, especially in the beginning of his narrative, is more playful and chaotic when compared to Melkor’s pure evil. This evolves near the end of the Edda, where Loki is said to fight against the gods at Ragnarok, which may be an influence of Christianity portraying Loki as the devil. It is then that Loki and Melkor resemble each other the most.

All the separate gods live in different mansions, both in Asgard and in Valinor. Snorri writes about Asgard: “It was their first act to build the temple that their thrones stand in, twelve in addition to the throne that belongs to the Allfather. This building is the best that is

22

built on earth and the biggest. They built another hall, this was the sanctuary that belonged to the goddesses, and it was very beautiful” (14). Similarly, Tolkien states in The Silmarillion:

“Behind the walls of the Pelóri the Valar established their domain in that region which is called Valinor, and there were their houses, their gardens, and their towers. In that guarded land the Valar gathered great store of light and an the fairest things that were saved from the ruin; and many others yet fairer they made anew, and Valinor became more beautiful even than Middle-earth in the Spring of Arda; and it was blessed, for the Deathless dwelt there, and there naught faded nor withered, neither was there any stain upon flower or leaf in that land, nor any corruption or sickness in anything that lived; for the very stones and waters were hallowed. (30)

Both segments use similar terms to describe the greatness of Asgard and Valinor; the descriptions of the grandiosity of the halls resemble each other, as well as the language used.

Besides these obvious parallels and the blatant copying of the names, one of the more obscure similarities between Snorri’s Prose Edda and The Silmarillion is the Christian influence. In the Prologue, Snorri states that there is one all-powerful God who created the world, and that the other gods are simply superhero-like humans who are descendants of the Trojans. While Snorri’s intentions were to fit Norse mythology into a Christian narrative, Tolkien also mentions that there is one singular ultimate creator of the universe, Eru Ilúvatar (meaning ‘The One Allfather’). Eru created the Valar and the Maiar, which are collectively called the Ainur. The first line of The Silmarillion is this: “There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they sang before him, and he was glad” (1). Eru is

23

the supreme deity of Middle Earth. He is a the singular creator of the Ainur, yet he has little to do with the following occurrences in The Silmarillion. On the other hand, the first line in the Prologue states: “Almighty God created heaven and earth and all things in them, and lastly two humans from whom generations are descended, Adam and Eve, and their stock multiplied and spread over all the world” (1). Eventually, the creation of more and more people led to the creation of the Æsir, originating in Troy. Snorri and Tolkien both write about a singular all-powerful god who, after the creation of the world, no longer interferes with the story.

A major difference between the Æsir that Snorri presents and the Ainur Tolkien describes, is the human and inhuman behaviour the gods display. Tolkien’s gods behave with grace and a purity which, like the elves, puts them above humans who are often greedy and selfish. All of the Ainur, with the exception of Melkor, are inherently good. In The

Silmarillion, Manwë is described as being so pure of heart that he could not even understand

the concept of evil:

It seemed to Manwë that the evil of Melkor was cured. For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever. (66)

On the other hand, Snorri’s descriptions of the Norse gods are anything but pure. While Odin himself is described as very wise, he is also the god of war and battle. In the Prose Edda, it is stated that the Einheriar, Odin’s troops in Walhalla, spend much of their time fighting each other to prepare for Ragnarok: “Each day after they have got dressed they put on war-gear and go out into the courtyard and fight each other and they fall each upon the other. This is their

24

sport” (34). Furthermore, Thor is always described as being the strongest of the gods, yet most of the stories featuring him portray him rather dim as he often gets tricked and deceived by others. Snorri also depicts Thor with quite a temper: “And when he realized that this labour was going to get nowhere, he got angry, grasped the hammer Miollnir in both hands and stepped forward with one foot to where Skrymir was lyring and struck at this head” (39). Many of these traits reflected in the gods in this manner reflect poorly upon them as deities. Staying true to their origins of Trojans, in contrast to the Ainur, the Æsir are often imperfect and possess many more human-like qualities.

When a medieval text such as the Prose Edda is adapted into a fantasy novel there is a level of mediation that occurs in the portrayal of the myths and its characters. However, how this mediation takes place differs from author to author, and depends on the way the story is adapted. As previously seen, mythology in itself is multifaceted, and is therefore difficult to define. Hiley states that “[m]yth, posing as universal truth, cuts itself off from any relativizing context; thus any critical judgment of it becomes increasingly difficult as myth denies the necessity of judgment” (857). According to Hiley, the act of creating a myth itself cannot be analysed, as myths themselves stand alone, cut off from context. Gergely Nagy emphasises this, by stating that:

Tolkien’s texts, and the background mythological system they succeed in creating, are essentially similar to real-world mythological corpora and the way they invoke their mythological system because of the basically similar relation of text to myth. Mythology traverses the definitions of textuality in the overlay of textual on oral and makes it clear that no text is myth by genre. (qtd. in Chance 252)

25

Nagy indicates that despite Tolkien identifying The Silmarillion as a mythopoeia, there is no defining way to categorise certain texts as myths. John White backs this claim up by arguing that “[w]e have, however, no reason to suppose that a work of literature is necessarily constructed to create or resuscitate myth, just because it includes mythological motifs” (8). However, while White certainly has a point regarding many novels which include mythological motifs, some of which will be discussed later on in this dissertation, this statement does not apply to Tolkien.

The Silmarillion is, while often broadly categorised as a fantasy novel, overall difficult

to identify. According to Jane Chance, when asked during one of his lectures about the exact mythological nature of his works, Tolkien answered that it was both pagan as well as Christian: “In the Beowulf lecture Tolkien attempted to resolve the long-standing critical debate over whether the poem was pagan’ or Christian by concluding that it was both: Germanic heroic values and Christianity coexist within the epic” (Tolkien's Art: A Mythology

for England 5). Furthermore, Tolkien himself coined the term mythopoeia to indicate a genre

for The Silmarillion, by which he meant the art of creating mythology which he would imitate and adapt from mythology from the real world. Tolkien would later state in one of his letters: "I dislike Allegory - the conscious and intentional allegory - yet any attempt to explain the purport of myth or fairy tale must use allegorical language" (Letters of Tolkien 131). Despite his initial dislike for allegories, Tolkien felt it was unavoidable to use allegorical language when writing about mythology. According to Dimitra Fimi, the reason for this are Tolkien’s Anglo-Saxon roots:

Tolkien was not immune to the Anglo-Saxon pride syndrome. He was proud to be an Anglo-Saxon by descent and a student of his ancestors' noble language (Carpenter 1981, 56, 102, 108 and 340). Thus, his attempt to create an English mythology can be

26

interpreted and justified. He started writing at a time when the Anglo-Saxons had been rediscovered and praised as the ancestors of modern England. (160)

The creation of the myths in The Silmarillion are therefore loosely connected to a larger narrative. In The Silmarillion, Tolkien took established mythological concepts from Norse mythology as well as Christian motifs, and adapted them into his own story and inherently changing the concepts as they were. Odin and Manwë, for instance, share a similar role of Allfather, yet the entire essence of their character is different.

While the myths themselves might not be so easily identified, as they exist outside of their intertextual context, the process of adaptation certainly is not. In her essay, Hiley implies that by taking original concepts from a myth, the primary work is stripped of its identity. She states that authors “frequently take already extant literature, which functions as the primary system of myth and superimpose on it the secondary system of their own work, thus robbing the primary work of its own identity and significance, stealing its language” (834). She claims that the intention behind this so-called ‘stealing’ is to establish textual authority by incorporating fragments of other well-known works or using them as a superstructure. Hiley portrays Tolkien’s concept of mythopoeia quite negatively, by arguing that the value of a primary text is somehow lessened once it is adapted into a secondary text. In the case of The

Silmarillion, however, this statement seems unwarranted. As previously mentioned, Tolkien’s

texts definitely adapt mythological concepts from the Edda. Nevertheless, they do not devalue Snorri’s original text, as, in Hiley’s own words, they exist outside of that mythological narrative. Nagy agrees:

To say that this gives Tolkien’s texts their “mythological quality” is to realize that mythopoesis happens in the process and is for a large part in the system; to call

27

Tolkien’s texts “mythopoeic” is to assign equal importance to all texts in the corpus and their interrelations – because it is precisely their interrelatedness and their claims to textual relations that make them mythological. (qtd. inChance, 254)

Nagy implies that both the secondary and the primary text retain their own identity and language precisely because Tolkien adapts parts from the Edda to fit into a his own world-building. Both the original work as well as the adaptation are equally important to the concept of Norse mythology as a whole. By adapting the Edda, Tolkien reinvents parts of this medieval mythology, much in the same way Snorri did when he adapted the Poetic Edda into his own, more Christian narrative. Michael Bell and Peter Poellner also provide a much more positive view on Tolkien’s mythology in The Silmarillion:

Through the use of myth, which is by definition both impersonal and ahistorical, a text can be given timelessness, a validity surpassing the mere concerns of the individual and the era, and its voice given an (apparent) authority through the parallels or direct quotation of ancient myth. Myth also becomes a means of giving unity to both a text and the world (which is, in the end, a text as well), as it "represents precisely the lost unity, real or imaginary, which preceded the modern division of realms." (5)

Overall, secondary works adapted from primary works do not deprive the primary works of their identity. Rather, it is their interconnectedness which gives both texts meaning. In a rather romantic fashion, Angie Voela reckons that in today’s modern society, “we need new myths, new ways of re-enchanting the world and reigniting hope” (5). This is exactly what Tolkien does: in this form of mediation, by reinventing the myths and assigning different aspects to them, the primary and secondary text are allowed to exist separately from each other.

28

Although concepts and characters overlap and are interconnected through the Edda and The

29

Chapter 3: The Americanised Myths of American Gods

The second fantasy novel which has adapted Norse mythology is American Gods, written by Neil Gaiman. Essential to an understandingof the gods in American Gods is the knowledge that these gods are not the same creatures as described in the Prose Edda. These gods are created out of human belief and worship. They are essentially nothing more than thought concepts. This allows Gaiman the creative freedom to create other gods, such as Technology and Media, since these are concepts to which people devote their time and worship in our current society. The main plot of American Gods revolves around a struggle between the old gods such as Odin, and new gods such as Technology and Globalisation. American Gods follows the perspective of a man named Shadow, who later turns out to be a reincarnation of the Norse god Baldr. Shadow’s journey leads him all over America, where he meets many different gods from different pantheons, including Native American, African, Egyptian, Celtic and Russian deities. The primary figures from Norse Mythology that Shadow comes to know are Odin and Loki. Odin introduces himself as Mr. Wednesday, indicating his true nature, as Wednesday is derived from Wōdnesdæg, or ‘day of Odin’. Loki, on the other hand, has become the antagonist as the leader of the new gods. He calls himself Mr. World, acting as a psychical manifestation of globalisation, as this is a concept that everyone believes in. Contrary to The Silmarillion, in which the gods fulfil similar roles to those of the Norse gods but do not represent the personality of those gods, Gaiman’s characters stay much more true to the Prose Edda’s portrayal of these characters. Similar to The Silmarillion, American Gods also includes different concepts from the Prose Edda. Examples of this include the existence of different realms and Yggdrasil, Odin’s ravens who act as his messengers, and the squirrel Ratatosk. In the Prose Edda it is written that “[a] squirrel called Ratatosk runs up and down through the ash and carries malicious messages between the eagle and Nidhogg” (18). In

30

American Gods, a squirrel whispers into Shadow’s ear and brings him water as he hangs from

the world tree, in a recreation of Odin’s vigil.

The characters of Mr. World, Shadow and Mr. Wednesday show quite a few similarities to their original counterparts in the Prose Edda, yet they have their differences as well. It is revealed that Shadow is the reincarnation of Baldr, and Mr. World and Mr. Wednesday are not the original Odin and Loki from the Prose Edda. They are aspects of their original characters in the Prose Edda. In Gaiman’s universe, gods are shaped by the belief people have in them. The gods in America, therefore, are Americanised versions of their original selves, hence the title of the novel. Wednesday is portrayed as a separate aspect of Odin, much like High, Just-as-High and Third are all different aspects of Odin in

Gylfaginning. Wednesday is quite similar to Odin from the Prose Edda in the sense that both

characters are on a never-ending quest for knowledge. Both versions of Odin have sacrificed an eye in order to gain cosmic knowledge, and both versions have hung nine days from Yggdrasil in order to learn the runes, as is stated in the Prose Edda. In Gylfaginning, Snorri copies the following stanza from a poem called Völuspá: ‘The Seeress’s Prophecy: “I know it all, Odin, / where you deposited you eye, / in that renowned / well of Mimir” (17). Wednesday also has the same knack for wordplay and persuasion in conversation as the original Odin. In his cleverness and seemingly earnest demeanour, Wednesday manages to convince both Shadow as well as the other gods to believe in him and fight in his war against the new gods. This is similar to how Odin in the Prose Edda manages to convince Gylfi of his innocence and rope him into accepting the challenge of who the wisest among them is. Wednesday’s speech about his identity is similar to that of the Prose Edda:

I told you I would tell you my names. This is what they call me. I'm called Glad-of-War, Grim, Raider, and Third. I am One-Eyed. I am called Highest, and True-Guesser.

31

I am Grimnir, and I am the Hooded One. I am Allfather, and I am Gondlir Wand-Bearer. I have as many names as there are winds, as many titles as there are ways to die. (Gaiman 145)

In the Prose Edda, Odin’s speech about his identity is practically the same, if slightly longer:

I call myself Grim and Ganglari, Herian, Hialmberi, Thekk, Third, Thunn, Unn, Helblindi, High, Sann, Svipal, Sanngetal, Herteit, Hnikar, Bileyg, Baleyg, Bolverk, Fiolnir, Grimnir, Glapsvinn, Fiolsvinn, Sidhott, Sidskegg, Sigfather, Hnikud, All-father, Atrid, Farmatyr, Oski ("God of Wishes"), Omi, Just-as-high, Blindi, Gondlir, Harbard, Svidur, Svidrir, Ialk, Kialar, Vidur, Thror, Ygg, Thund, Vakr, Skilfing, Vafud, Hropta-Tyr, Gaut, Veratyr. (21)

Nevertheless, there are some major differences between Wednesday and Odin. As a result of the little worship Wednesday has received in America, he has become overtly cynical in his speech, nihilistic in his worldviews and much less playful with his actions. In a segment where Wednesday speaks to the other gods, he explains their position:

We have, let us face it and admit it, little influence. We prey on them, and we take from them, and we get by; we strip and we whore and we drink too much; we pump gas and we steal and we cheat and we exist in the cracks at the edges of society. Old gods, here in this new land without gods. (Gaiman 150)

The Wednesday portrayed in American Gods does not hesitate to sacrifice his friends for his own self-preservation. While he does occasionally show that he cares about Shadow, more

32

often than not Wednesday is presented as a conniving conman, rather than the wise Allfather shown in the Edda. This difference is addressed near the end of the novel, when Shadow meets the original version of Odin in Iceland:

"I saw you die," said Shadow. "I stood vigil for your body. You tried to destroy so much, for power. You would have sacrificed so much for yourself. You did that." "I did not do that."

"Wednesday did. He was you."

"He was me, yes. But I am not him." (634)

According to Tiago Kern, “[t]his exchange clearly explains that the man Shadow talks to in Iceland is supposed to be the actual ‘original’” ancient Allfather god, and that Wednesday in America is a sort of corrupted copy version of this olden entity who wanders the streets of modern-day Iceland” (76). The original Odin, as is to be expected, is portrayed much more true to the original character in the Edda. He appreciates Shadow’s wordplay and coin tricks, and is constantly seeking knowledge. While Odin in the Prose Edda is also depicted as cunning and deceptive, he also appears much more supernatural and god-like, contrasting with the much more humanised version of Wednesday. Wednesday, as depicted in American

Gods, is a weaker version of the original, stripped of his power. The contrast between the two

characters is noteworthy, especially since they are meant to be aspects of the same character. Mr. World, who occasionally also goes by the less than subtle name of Low-key Lyesmith, is similar to Wednesday’s character in terms of power and personality. In the Prose

Edda, Loki is described as an evil character, yet willing to help the gods out of the trouble he

33

Loki is pleasing and handsome in appearance, evil in character, very capricious in behaviour. He possessed to a greater degree than others the kind of learning that is called cunning, and tricks for every purpose. He was always getting the Æsir into a complete fix and often got them out of it by trickery. (26)

Mr. World is similar to his Scandinavian counterpart in that he still enjoys playing tricks on the main characters, even if this does not directly benefit his cause. His disdain for Baldr is still prevalent in Gaiman’s version as well, as he recounts how he will kill Shadow in a similar way Baldr was killed in the Edda: “When this is all done with, I guess I’ll sharpen a stick of mistletoe and go down to the ash tree, and ram it through his eye” (570). While Baldr was not stabbed in the eye in the Edda, he was killed with mistletoe. Loki’s deception of Frigg and killing of Baldr can be seen as just as evil as that of his modern counterpart. It appears Gaiman did not have to change much in order to enhance Loki’s chaotic and selfish nature for his novel, as in American Gods, the main reason he appears to be helping Wednesday with his plans is self-preservation. A slight difference in the personality of Loki seems to be that he no longer has any interest in helping people out of the trouble he caused. Gaiman depicts a portrayal of the gods retaining their personality, but losing their powers, which made them god-like. Mr. World and Mr. Wednesday are versions of Loki and Odin who are desperate and angry as a result of the lack of belief in them.

At the end of the novel, Shadow is revealed to be Baldr, Odin’s, and by extension Wednesday’s, son. Over the course of the novel, Shadow has visions and dreams about his own death: being stabbed by mistletoe. He is also shown to have other supernatural abilities, such as control over the weather, and the ability to get along with nearly everyone he meets in the novel. Many people whom Shadow encounters comment on his handsome appearance: “‘You’re a big one,’ said Nancy, staring into Shadow’s light-gray eyes with his old eyes the

34

color of mahogany, ‘a tall drink of water’” (Gaiman 138). Out of all the characters, Shadow’s personality seems most true to that of Baldr in the Prose Edda. In Gylfaginning, Baldr is described as the fairest and the wisest of the Æsir:

High said: 'Odin's second son is Baldr, and there is good to be told him. He is best and all praise him. He is so fair in appearance and so bright that light shines from him (...) He is the wisest of the Æsir and most beautifully spoken and most merciful, but it is one of his characteristics that none of his decisions can be fulfilled’. (23)

In American Gods, Shadow is usually attempting to stop the actions of others he deems morally wrong, and he is often the one to choose honesty over lies, contrary to most other characters he meets. This leads him to unravel mysteries faster and become more successful in his endeavours.

Besides the obvious parallels between Norse mythology and the backdrop of American

Gods, the extent of the gods’ power depends on how many people believe in them and offer

them their worship. In modern America, where people occupy their time with screens and technology, the ‘old’ gods appear to be dying. The entire character of Thor, who in the Prose

Edda is described in great detail and with many stories attributed to his strength and glory in

battle, is done away with in just a few sentences in American Gods:

“I just keep thinking about Thor. You never knew him. Big guy, like you. Good hearted. Not bright, but he’d give you the goddamned shirt off his back if you asked him. And he killed himself. He put a gun in his mouth and blew his head off in Philadelphia in 1932. What kind of way is that for a god to die?” (Gaiman 416)

35

This paragraph highlights the main difference between the portrayal of the gods in American

Gods and Prose Edda, and The Silmarillion by extension. Snorri, while claiming his gods are

humans descendants of the Trojans, portrays them with more god-like qualities than Gaiman’s version of the gods. In American Gods, Wednesday and Mr. World show more human behaviour and vulnerability than both Snorri and Tolkien’s gods. This is especially emphasised by the eventual deaths of Wednesday and Mr. World. In the end, both die human deaths as a result of natural causes. Shadow, on the other hand, dies in a much more supernatural fashion, as a result of hanging from Yggdrasil for seven days.

While the characterisation has remained largely the same to the Prose Edda, Gaiman introduces substantial changes into his novel. Similar to Tolkien’s beliefs, Gaiman’s faith has shaped his works throughout the years. While he was raised in a Jewish belief system, his school provided him with an Anglican education. In her article, Cyril Camus argues:

His Jewish identity certainly made him an “outsider” in his Anglican educational environment, but being half immersed in another belief-system than his family’s, from an early age on, actually allowed him to put both systems in perspective. As he puts it, “in a sense, it made [him] view everything as myth.” (78)

Camus implies that his home life and education made Gaiman an outsider to both the Jewish and the Anglican faith. While Gaiman has described himself as a believer, he cannot specify a particular belief system he adheres to (Camus 85). There are a quite a few similarities to be found between American Gods and The Silmarillion. Irina Rață writes: “In American Gods Gaiman plays with countless references, allusions and quotations from earlier sources to mould new stories and myths, and express his views of America and its identity” (106). Tolkien, as previously seen, expresses his views of Middle Earth in a similar way, with many

36

allusions and references to other religions and mythologies. However, there are quite a few differences in the way the myths are adapted. For instance, there is the most obvious fact that Tolkien’s Middle Earth is based on a fictional medieval world, while Gaiman’s story takes place in the 90’s in our own modern world. Furthermore, the myths written by Tolkien give life to an entirely new pantheon and mythology based on the original concepts of the Edda. Gaiman, on the other hand, uses old myths to create new ones with similar figures. In

American Gods, Gaiman introduces many different pantheons from different mythologies

coexisting on the same plane of reality.

As Tolkien stated about his own work, allegories seem to be unavoidable. Gaiman utilises his characters to convey a deeper message about religion and the evolution of technology and globalisation in American society. According to Rață, “[t]he old gods represent in the novel multiculturalism and pluralism of the United States of America. The new gods represent another level of intertextuality parallel to what the old gods represent. They are modern world myths, representing a dominant ideology” (110). Rață indicates here that Gaiman utilises his mythopoeia to show what identifies America as a country, namely the struggle between the old gods and the new gods. America is a country created out of many different cultures, all coexisting in one place. Gaiman relates to this by writing multiple segments in which he shows different cultures making their way to America, and the fashion in which they live amongst one another. Gaiman implies that this is a never-ending cycle of older cultures coming into contact with newer cultures. Rață argues that this makes American

Gods “a combination of old and new, historic and mythical, legend and reality, in a melting

pot which creates a unique portrayal of American identity” (36). Gaiman utilises mythology in a relatable way to a modern audience, especially Americans. This is where Gaiman and Tolkien differ most from one another in their adaptations of the myths. While Tolkien’s mythology, as established earlier, exists outside of the mythological narrative, Gaiman’s work

37

certainly does not. Tolkien reinvents his own mythology by copying aspects of the original work. Gaiman, on the other hand, takes the established myths as they are and adds onto them by transporting them to relatively modern times, and making them relatable to a modern audience. While Tolkien’s work remains mostly separate from the original myths, American

Gods is inseparably connected to them. Despite the fact that American Gods accepts the

established myths from the Edda as a given basis for the story, I suggest that Gaiman’s novel can still be called a mythopoeia. First of all, the gods presented are not the same as those from the original Edda, and secondly, Gaiman introduces entirely new gods into his narrative. Rață supports this claim, stating:

Gaiman embraces and explores this myth/literature relationship, imagining a contemporary mythology of his own. Although he re-shapes and reinvents classical myths and combines them with legends, folktales and intertextual references in a postmodern blend, his mythology follows the classic structures of ancient myth and wondertale. (43)

In light of this theory, Johan Degenaar points out how the meaning of myths can change per individual: “Postmodernism emphasises the fact that myth is an ambiguous phenomenon and that the individual must decide what the meaning of myth is and whether it functions in terms of domination or emancipation, and evaluate and act accordingly” (48).

Furthermore, the way in which the new gods interact with the old gods says a lot about how these old myths are viewed in a modern society. The new gods argue that there is no place for the old gods in a modern world, which is a similar process of what happened to the Prose Edda in real life. In our current society, little attention is paid to Snorri’s works by the general public. This is where Gaiman’s fantasy adaptation gives new life to these myths.