Doing Hera’s Work on “Hercules”

Lightening up a legend (DeDisneyfication, Part 3B)

Hercules’ place in the Disney animated film studio’s chronology comes following The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Pocahontas. Both earlier films were criticized for being too dark, serious, and generally inappropriate for young audiences, so the studio decided to do something lighter.

How they landed on the myth of Herakles (Ἡρακλῆς) as the right vehicle to accomplish this boggles the mind: in order to do any justice at all to the tales, you’d have to go very dark indeed.

The tale of Herakles is an unhappy one from the start: although it’s often been Bowdlerized, Zeus (Ζεύς) disguising himself as Alkmene’s (Ἀλκμήνη) husband to get into her bed can only be described as rape. 1981’s R-rated Excalibur contains such a scene for Arthur’s (Nigel Terry) conception and it’s hardly Disney fare.

Next, Hera (Ἥρα) gets Eileithyia (Εἰλείθυια), the goddess of childbirth, to attempt to prevent Herakles from ever being born: Eileithyia sits at the door with her arms and legs crossed, thus staying the birth, which would ultimately kill both mother and child. But Alkmene’s handmaiden Galinthias (Γαλινθιάς) tricks her, shouting “a son is born!” Surprised, Eileithyia jumps to her feet, so releasing her hold on Alkmene’s womb, so she can finally give birth. Of course, the goddess was furious at being tricked and transforms Galinthias into a polecat.

When he is born, Alkmene leaves Herakles in the wilderness to die so she may escape Hera’s wrath—an example of ancient victim blaming—which he manages to survive with help from his divine sibling(s). Then Hera sends serpents to kill the infant.

And this continues to be the dominant feature throughout Herakles’ life, and the madness she causes in him during which he kills his children, a couple of his brothers’, and possibly his wife is just the icing on the hate cake Hera bakes for her husband’s bastard son.

And even apart from the trouble brought on him because of his divine birth, Herakles is also a hothead—Hera has nothing to do with him murdering his music teacher Linus (Λῖνος), or lopping the noses and ears off the Orchomenian (Ὀρχομένιος) tribute collectors, precipitating a war in which his foster father dies.

He’s a monster slayer, but also leaves a bloody trail of homicides in his wake. He’s also sexually voracious, and, for that matter, omnivorous—Philoktetes (Φιλοκτήτης), much altered in the Disney version—is much more than a pal in the myths, and was actually one of the demigod’s several male lovers.

So, although simply choosing a more light-hearted tale would seem a much better choice, Disney wades directly into this minefield. And then, in order to make this myth fit the bill, they essentially gut it, which is why the matter I dealt with in Part 3A was so lengthy.

There are some specific strategies they seem to have applied: the first revolves around simply making fun of the myths, the second is equating heroism with modern sports, and the last is applying Judeo-Christian cosmology and morality to the tale.

It seems overall Disney chose an approach that was snarky and reductive: Hermes (Ἑρμῆς) appears as a caricature of Paul Shaffer who voices him/ the FTD logo, the Muses (Μοῦσαι, Lillias White, Cheryl Freeman, LaChanze, Roz Ryan, Vaneese Thomas) are a Motown/ Gospel girl group, Pegasus (Πήγασος, Frank Welker) thinks he’s a dog, several of the characters toss out Borscht-Belt one-liners, the comedy relief is both unneeded, as the film is nearly never serious, and goofier than ever: Roman and Greek elements are conflated, the Easter eggs fly thick and fast, and Thebes (Θῆβαι) is presented as an ancient New York, complete with Yiddish quipping.

All this does indeed have the effect of keeping the film light, but it also means we have zero investment in anything that’s happening. Instead, these larger-than-life gods, heroes, and deeds are made small, safe, and perhaps worthy of an occasional sympathetic chuckle.

Professional sports fame was chosen as the corollary to heroism in Greek myth. This again is pretty far off base—product endorsements like Air-Herc sandals ring false as a reward for doing in monsters terrorizing the countryside. Yes, of course I understand it’s the film’s point that this does not represent true heroism, but it’s not well made.

Everyone takes to calling Hercules (Tate Donovan) “Wonderboy”, itself a reference to the 1984 baseball film, The Natural. The all-too-familiar training montage is employed, including a phoned-in Mr.-Miyagi-crane-kick scene, and backed by the song, Go the Distance, which is pretty much a dress rehearsal for “I’ll Make a Man out of You”.

Next, Hades (James Woods) is presented as being a toga-wearing version of a cartoonishly evil Satan: he plots to overthrow Zeus (Rip Torn), he makes deals—the deal Haides (Ἁιδης) made with Herakles regarding Kerberos (Κέρβερος), which I mentioned in the previous article, was a rare exception in the myths—his head is on fire, everything around him is decorated with skulls, and he enjoys slurping worms and torturing his henchmen. His underworld is a gloomy place full of tormented souls—in short, it’s hell.

And it contrasts in black-and-white-morality fashion with the cloud palace of Olympus (Ὄλυμπος), inhabited by glowing, floating folk; a gate with St. Peter standing guard would not feel out of place here. And finally, the idea self sacrifice is the only true heroism appears, as it does nearly nowhere in Greek myth.

The one bright spot in the film to me was Megara (Μέγαρα, “Meg”, Susan Egan), who is perhaps the most real female person in any Disney movie. Sure, she’s a bit of a femme fatale, but her response to Hercules when he finds her in Nessus’ (Νέσσος, Jim Cummings) clutches is brilliant:

Hercules: Aren’t you… a damsel in distress?
Meg: I’m a damsel, I’m in distress, I can handle this. Have a nice day.

Unlike the wry remarks the other characters bandy about, hers land:

Meg: I’m a big tough girl. I tie my own sandals and everything.

Unfortunately, not only does the film fail the Bechdel test—as most from the studio do—she’s also alone in every regard: none of the other characters are ones we remotely care about.

Some will no doubt say all this is just a reimagining; the recontextualizations¹ are meant to make sense of these myths for a modern audience, and the simplifications do the same for a younger audience.

But none of that is true. This is a self-indulgent and empty film, where pop culture references stand in for real comedic writing. Jason and the Argonauts, released in 1963, even though it was rated G, and its effects are quite crude compared to today’s, contained a much greater sense of the peril and wonder of the myths.


Read subsequent articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 4: Tale As Old As Agriculture

Part 4 Addendum: The Enchanted and the Postmodern

Part 5: Putting “Pocahontas” to Rest

Part 5 Addendum: Powhatan’s Mantle

Part 6: Trouble with “Tarzan”

Part 7A: The Wrong Rabbit Hole

Part 7A Addendum A: Curious Curation

Part 7A Addendum B: “Alice” in Revolt

Part 7A Addendum C: How “Alice” Grew Big in Japan

Part 7B: Alice’s Adventures in the Cousins’ War

Part 7B Addendum: Repainting the Roses

Part 8: Guerrillas and the “Jungle”

Part 9A: Through a Magic Mirror Marred

Part 9A Addendum: The Woods “Over the Wall”

Part 9B: The Sum of its Versions

Part 9C: The “Snow White” Studio

Part 9D: Snowhaus

Part 10: The Little Less-Than

Part 11: Batmouse 3D

Part 12: Mork & Scheherazade


Read previous articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 1: Straightening out “Hunchback”

Part 2: Making over “Mulan”

Part 2 Addendum B: Your Western Wuxia Is Weak

Part 3A: “Hercules”: Myths and Mistakes


Notes

  1. See Howard Waldrop’s 1989 novella A Dozen Tough Jobs for a decent recontextualization of the Herakles myth in the Depression-era South.

“Hercules”: Myths and Mistakes

A quick list of Disney’s misses on the Herakles legend (DeDisneyfication, Part 3A)

Much is made of Disney’s Hercules differing from all their other animated films except for Fantasia, because it deals with myth rather than works based on fiction or fairy tales. But setting aside fiction, the forms are in fact closely linked, as the “three main […] prose genres of folklore” are:¹

[Fairy tales] usually follow a hero or heroine who comes up against some sort of obstacle (or obstacles)—from witches and ogres, to dwarves and (as the name suggests) fairies […] Myths are believed to be true stories about gods or magical beings that can teach a moral lesson, whereas legends report extraordinary things happening to ordinary people (generally reported as true, but with some reservations on behalf of the audience and/or narrator).

And, as we saw with Mulan, history and legend often blend, and many stories ultimately come from folklore.

The word myth, as it is now used, contains the unfortunate implication of something untrue, but the original Greek word, μῦθος, simply means “story”. And indeed, Hercules’ opening number, “The Gospel Truth”, makes fun of how impossible the things depicted in Greek myth are. But it’s important to remember that, as noted above, these things were believed to be true.

Further, the religion of ancient Greece spread to much of ancient Europe, west Asia, and north Africa with Hellenism. This culture underpins all of Western civilization to such an extent, logos like that of FTD and emergency services bear images or devices of these gods. The Disney film even mimics the FTD logo when Hermes (Paul Shaffer) delivers flowers at Hercules’ (Tate Donovan) birth.

As such, I feel these tales deserve much greater respect than they are given in general and definitely more than Disney accords them.

From a mythological standpoint, there are a number of elements that are erroneous, which I’ll simply enumerate rather than discussing them at length.

It’s important to note since the myths existed for such a large time and across such a large geographical area, there is some variation among them. As such, I include various versions here. I’ve presented them roughly in the order they appear in the film. I could have broken them down further to expand the list, but that was not my goal.

  • After their defeat, the Titanes (Τῑτᾶνες, Titans) were imprisoned in the great pit of Tartaros (Τάρταρος) beneath the earth, not beneath the ocean. Tartaros is a sort of anti-sky.
  • The Titanes represented various qualities, for example, Atlas (Ατλας); endurance (ἔτλην—etlen). Disney essentially invented a whole new set of Titans based on the four classical elements.
  • Kyklopes (Κύκλωψ, Cyclopes) and Titanes are distinct and different creatures—the Kyklopes sided with Zeus (Ζεύς) against the Titanes. However, the Kyklopes are brothers to the Titanes, along with the Hekatonkheires (Ἑκατόγχειρες).
  • There were nine Mousai (Μοῦσαι, Muses), here reduced to five.
  • Narkissos (Νάρκισσος, Narcissus) was not a god, and does not belong in Olympos (Ὄλυμπος, Olympus). Rather, he was cursed to fall in love with his own reflection and become the eponymous flower.
  • Although Greek names are used for all the other characters, the Roman form of the main character’s name is used rather than Herakles. The Roman version comes from the Etruscan 𐌄𐌋𐌂𐌓𐌄𐌇 (Hercle), which derives from the Greek Ἡρακλῆς, but changes because of the Etruscan language’s emphasis on the first syllable.
  • Herakles was actually called Alkeides (Αλκειδης) until immediately before beginning his 12 labors.
  • One of the defining elements of Herakles’ life was Hera’s (Ἥρα, Samantha Eggar) continuous attempts to destroy him, as the product of one of Zeus’ (Rip Torn) many infidelities so portraying him as her son and she as his loving mother is pretty far off base.
  • Pegasos (Πήγασος, Pegasus, Frank Welker) sprang from the neck of the Gorgon (Γοργών), Medousa (Μέδουσα, Medusa) when she was beheaded, rather than clouds. His name, ultimately from the Greek πηγάζο (pegazo), “sprung forth”, reflects this origin.
  • The winged horse later became Zeus’ lightning bearer, so depending on the timeline, he should already have been in Olympos: when Bellerophon (Βελλεροφῶν) tried to ride Pegasos to Olympos, Zeus caused him to be bucked off, but his steed continued on without him.
  • Zeus, Haides (ᾍδης, James Woods), and their other brother, Poseidon (Ποσειδῶν), drew lots to determine who ruled what realm.
  • Zeus is the youngest of the three.
  • Zeus freed Haides (and Poseidon) from Kronos’ belly—he had eaten them.
  • The three brothers fought together against the Titanes.
  • Haides generally seems pretty happy with his realm in myth and never tries to overthrow Zeus.
  • Haides has several attendants in myth, but Panic (Matt Frewer) and Pain (Bobcat Goldthwait) are not among them.
  • Pain and Panic are possible translations of the names of the sons of Ares, Phobos and Deimos (Ἄρης, Φόβος, and Δεῖμος).
  • The Moirae (Μοῖραι, Fates, Amanda Plummer, Carole Shelley, Paddi Edwards) are different from the Graeae (Γραιαι, sea hags with a single eye between them), conflated here
  • The Fates were born of Zeus, and so served him, never Haides. Indeed, of all the gods, Zeus is said to know what is fated, though even he is not above fate.
  • Herakles was always a demigod—his divinity was never taken away from him, and in fact, Hera breast fed him once, increasing his supernatural power. When he suckled too hard, Hera pushed him away, and the spray formed the Milky Way. The word galaxy reflects this myth, originating from the Ancient Greek name for ours, Γαλαξίας, with the root γᾰλᾰ (gala) meaning “milk” This also makes the phrase “Milky Way Galaxy” pleonastic.
  • The snakes Herakles strangled were sent by Hera to kill him.
  • Alkmene (Ἀλκμήνη, Barbara Barrie), rather than being a hapless foster mother, was Herakles’ real mother. She exposed him (i.e., left him to die in the wilderness) to avert Hera’s wrath, whence Athena (Ἀθηνᾶ), or some sources say Hermes, rescued him and took him to Hera to unwittingly nurse.
  • Amphitryon (Ἀμφιτρύων, Hal Holbrook) and Alkmene were not farmers, but the king and queen of Messene (Μεσσήνη).
  • Herakles did have a troubled childhood—he used a lyre to slay Linos (Λῖνος, Linus), his music tutor, and was sent to the mountains to tend cattle like Michael Corleone and avoid further such incidents.
  • Herakles did have some very distinctive accouterments, but an amulet was never one of them. His knobby olive-wood club and lion skin cloak are best known, and do eventually make an appearance in the film.
  • He did visit an oracle, but it was not at the temple of Zeus. Instead, it was the famed oracle of Delphoi (Δελφοί, Delphi), where the temple is consecrated to Apollon (Ἀπόλλων, Apollo, Keith David). He was also advised to complete the 12 labors, and change his name to appease Hera (Herakles means “glory of Hera”).
  • Zeus actually appearing in his temple would never happen in myth; typically, an oracle would communicate in such a case and typically in riddles.
  • Herakles was not taught by Philoktetes (Φιλοκτήτης, “Phil”, Danny DeVito), but Amphitryon taught him to drive a chariot, Autolykos (Αὐτόλυκος, Autolykus) to wrestle, Eurytos (Εὔρυτος, Eurytus) the bow, Kastor (Κάστωρ, Castor) armored combat, and Linos (until the incident mentioned above) singing and playing the lyre.
  • Philoktetes was the human disciple, friend, and armor-bearer of Herakles—Herakles taught him to use the bow, as well as bequeathing him his archery equipment.
  • Kheiron (Χείρων, Chiron) the Kentauros (Κένταυρος, Centaur)—not Philoktetes and not a Satyros (Σάτυρος, Satyr)—was the teacher of Akhilleus (Ἀχιλλεύς, Achilles), and also a friend of Herakles.
  • Herakles was one of the Argonautes (Ἀργοναύτης, Argonauts)—sort of: he joined them but left the quest in the middle.
  • Herakles predates both the Trojan War and Akhilleus.
  • Perseus (Περσεύς) was also Zeus’ son—it was far from uncommon.
  • Nessos (Νέσσος, Jim Cummings) the Kentauros, tried to rape Herakles’ much later wife, Deianeira (Δῃάνειρα), and had nothing to do with Megara (Μέγαρα “Meg”, Susan Egan). After Nessos carried Deianeira across the river Euenos (Εὔηνος), Herakles slew him using arrows dipped in venom made from the Lernaean Hydra’s (Λερναῖα Ὕδρα) blood. The incident also precipitated Herakles’ own death.
  • Apart from tribute-collecting Orkhomenioi (Ὀρχομένιοι, Orchomenians), Thebai (Θῆβαι, Thebes) didn’t have a lot of problems at this time. All the trouble around Thebes might be a reference to such goings on in Oidipous’ (Οἰδίπους, Oedipus) time (which should be in the past of the Herakles timeline).
  • Herakles met and wed Megara after going to war on behalf of the Thebans against the Orkhomenioi. She was the eldest daughter of Kreon (Κρέων, Creon), king of Thebes. Also, Amphitryon died during the war.
  • The Hydra lived near Argos (Ἄργος), far from Thebes.
  • More specifically, in a swamp, not a gorge.
  • It was a creature of Hera, like so many of Herakles’ foes.
    When any of its heads were cut off, two would replace it, not three.
  • It was slain by burning off its eight mortal heads, then burying its immortal ninth head under a massive rock.
  • Its slaying was the second of Herakles’ 12 labors.
  • In the myth, the Hydra has a crab buddy (Καρκίνος, Cancer).
  • Herakles did fight in the Gigantomakhia (Γίγας + μαχία “War of the Gigantes”), which was inspired by anger over the Titanes’ treatment, but did not involve them directly.
  • Megara was either killed by Herakles, along with all their children, during a bout of madness caused by Hera, or was remarried to Iolaus (Ἰόλαος), depending on the source.
  • Herakles visited the underworld twice in myth, to bring Kerberos (Κέρβερος, Cerberus) to the upper world, which was the last of his 12 labors, and then again to take him back.
  • Haides actually agreed to let Herakles take Kerberos if he would just stop killing everyone in the underworld.
  • He found the hound near the Akheron (Ἀχέρων, Acheron) according to most accounts, though to be fair, a few do mention the Styx (Στύξ).
  • He also delivered Theseus (Θησεύς) from the underworld, but no one else.
  • Herakles became immortal upon his death.

This list is quite large, and there are more such issues, but I didn’t want to make it any bigger after a certain point. It has been said of the many retellings of the story of Herakles, Disney’s is the farthest off the mark, mythologically, and this list is more than enough to bear that out.

Next time, I’ll discuss the film more on the basis of its storytelling.


Read subsequent articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 3B: Doing Hera’s Work on “Hercules”

Part 4: Tale As Old As Agriculture

Part 4 Addendum: The Enchanted and the Postmodern

Part 5: Putting “Pocahontas” to Rest

Part 5 Addendum: Powhatan’s Mantle

Part 6: Trouble with “Tarzan

Part 7A: The Wrong Rabbit Hole

Part 7A Addendum A: Curious Curation

Part 7A Addendum B: “Alice” in Revolt

Part 7A Addendum C: How “Alice” Grew Big in Japan

Part 7B: Alice’s Adventures in the Cousins’ War

Part 7B Addendum: Repainting the Roses

Part 8: Guerrillas and the “Jungle”

Part 9A: Through a Magic Mirror Marred

Part 9A Addendum: The Woods “Over the Wall”

Part 9B: The Sum of its Versions

Part 9C: The “Snow White” Studio

Part 9D: Snowhaus

Part 10: The Little Less-Than

Part 11: Batmouse 3D

Part 12: Mork & Scheherazade


Read previous articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 1: Straightening out “Hunchback”

Part 2: Making over “Mulan”

Part 2 Addendum B: Your Western Wuxia Is Weak


Notes

  1. “Telling (fairy) tales”, OUPblog, February 2017, my emphasis.

Making Over “Mulan”

The repeated appropriation of a woman warrior’s tale (DeDisneyfication, Part 2)

Disney’s Mulan (1998) is drawn from a poem of only 42 stanzas sketching the tale of a woman warrior. At first blush, this work might seem better suited to the studio’s treatment than some of the larger works they have attempted to cram into their 90-minute package. They even had women—one of them Chinese—on the writing staff, and they seem to have done actual research.

Nonetheless, it turns to ethnic stereotypes and tired gags, yielding a film whose girl power is pretty weak. Reasonably successful in the West, it received a much worse reception in China, where it was seen as “foreign looking” and reflecting little of their legends, although certainly unfair trade practices may have been another factor.

The Disney version of the film first builds a straw man Chinese culture, where women are best seen and not heard, and then knocks the flimsy construct down. They do so by making a mockery of Mulan (Ming-Na Wen)—she shows little competence at anything with the possible exception of xiàngqí (象棋), a game sometimes called “Chinese chess”; a skill for which there is also no pay-off. She can’t even hold a sword, and her method of using her dog, Little Brother, to feed the chickens defiles the family shrine—until she receives training in the army.

Even this half-hearted foray into the woman warrior genre came after the waters had been well-tested by those who didn’t feel they had to dress their heroines in drag or have them trained by men to do it, like Buffy and Xena. Even so, in the end, Mulan goes back to the life she previously dreaded, turning down the government post offered by the Emperor (Pat Morita) for her heroism, also (it is suggested) becoming romantically involved with her former captain, Li Shang (BD Wong), and accepting the role of obedient, quiet wife.

Other characters in the film are more disturbing, including the large, mannish matchmaker (Miriam Margolyes), who first has a beard and mustache drawn on her, and then is set on fire. And still more so, Chi-Fu (James Hong), the Emperor’s advisor, is a misogynist bad guy, who is also effeminate—contrasting strongly with Mulan’s “manly men” army pals as a clear gay stereotype. Unlike some of James Hong’s other roles, this is problematic. The portrayal of Asian men as villainous and asexual in Western media has a long and troubled history, employed to make men of “other races” seem less attractive to white women.

Another issue comes in the form of Mushu, portrayed by Eddie Murphy in a performance nearly a dress rehearsal for his Donkey role in Shrek (2001), and which cuts still closer to the bone of cultural insensitivity. Naming this comedic character after a well-known American-Chinese food (moo shu pork, 木须肉) conjures images of the ’60s DC Comics character Egg Foo. This Yellow Peril caricature’s name was drawn from another such dish, egg foo young (芙蓉蛋). The Ah-Chu-God-bless-you gag occurs, egg rolls are called for—one wonders if a racist light bulb joke was pitched at some point.

Turning to the “real” Mulan, there is doubt whether she belongs to history or legend, and moreover, whether she was even Chinese. Even her name is not entirely agreed upon: while Mùlán (木蘭, “magnolia”) seems consistent for her given name, Disney gives her family name as Fa—which is the Cantonese version of the more commonly used Huā (花, “flower”)—but Zhū (朱, “cinnabar”) and Wèi (魏, from the Kingdom of the same name) have also been used in various works.

The first known story about her was told in a ballad which is completely lost to us but which was documented by Zhi Jiang (智匠) of the Chen dynasty (陳朝, 557–589) in approximately 568 CE.¹ The definitive text both available and most commonly referenced, The Ballad of Mulan, was collected in an anthology by Guō Màoqiàn, during the Song dynasty (宋朝, 960–1279) in the 12th century.² Recent scholars have concluded, based on Guō’s inclusion of the work among yuèfǔ (樂府, “Northern poems”), as well as its character, it most likely was created sometime in the fifth or sixth century.³

The Northern Wei dynasty (北魏, 386–535) this ballad would therefore be identified with was founded by the Xianbei (鮮卑) tribe, a non-Han (漢) nomadic people. It’s important to note the language spoken by these peoples was likely a Mongolic one, and the name Xianbei is either a transliteration of their own demonym or, more likely, an exonym.

Furthermore, the depiction of a woman warrior runs against the image of the gentle and graceful ladies the literary tradition of Confucianism (儒家) favors, whereas tales of horsewomen with traits similar to Mulan’s—bravery, martial prowess, and military resourcefulness—do appear among the poems of the Northern tradition, such as The Ballad of Li Bo’s Younger Sister and The Black-Tailed Red Horse,⁴ both yuèfǔ from the same period as the Ballad of Mulan. Such songs make sense to the state of constant warfare in the region, making these traits admirable in individuals without regard to their gender. As the poem says in closing:

双兔傍地走,安能辨我是雄雌?

Two hares running side by side close to the ground, How can they tell if I am he or she?

This is the original Mulan, an independent, accomplished horsewoman, skilled with sword and bow, and with a keen mind for military strategy. She is not lacking in confidence in any way, is not in need of any training from anyone, doesn’t whine about hardship, and camps alone on her way to join the fighting. Neither does she fight for the couple of days the Disney film presents, but instead for 10 years, and those not easy ones:

将军百战死 […].

Generals die in a hundred battles […].

One element—Hua’s taking up of her aging father’s sword—was seized upon as an opportunity to change the story into a Confucian fable. Already in Guō’s work, he records a so-called “Second Mulan”, retelling the tale in the eighth century with significant revisions stressing Confucian virtues, in particular, filial piety (孝, xiào).

Where in the original, Hua declines a government post after returning from war triumphant, Tang dynasty (唐; 618–690, 705–907) official Wei Yuanfu (韋元甫) omits that part, as giving a woman political power would be inconceivable to his worldview. Finally, the first-person perspective of the original disappears, and an impersonal, moralizing third-person narration takes over instead.

I hadn’t known it when I began this piece, but apparently a live-action version of Mulan is set to be released by Disney two years hence. I’d like to see them treat the cultural issues with more sensitivity, peeling away the layers of appropriation the story has already undergone in China—which made it into a legend of Confucian orthodoxy in support of the empire—as well as steering clear of the ethnic biases Western media have applied to portrayals of Asians.

It is also my hope they present a proud, strong horsewoman from the Xianbei nomadic tribes fighting to defend her family and her homeland of the Northern Wei, perhaps with badass female warrior buddies instead of anthropomorphized animals and stupid macho dudes.


Addendum A

There was one additional point I think worth making, which I did not include in my initial post: the choice of the Huns, also known as the Xiongnu (匈奴), as the invaders that had to be fought off, always struck me as odd. The Huns’ activities in Asia were in fact fairly limited, and Mulan’s people, the Xianbei, supplanted them on the steppe, perhaps driving them to their better-known invasions of Europe. Shan Yu (Miguel Ferrer), despite being the villain, is strong, clever, skilled at riding, use of the bow and the sword, living off the land, and falconry; all things still associated with these Northern tribes. In short, I’d conclude his portrayal, minus the two-dimensional evil, is actually closer to an authentic Mulan.


Read subsequent articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 2 Addendum B: Your Western Wuxia Is Weak

Part 3A: “Hercules”: Myths and Mistakes

Part 3B: Doing Hera’s Work on “Hercules”

Part 4: Tale As Old As Agriculture

Part 4 Addendum: The Enchanted and the Postmodern

Part 5: Putting “Pocahontas” to Rest

Part 5 Addendum: Powhatan’s Mantle

Part 6: Trouble with “Tarzan”

Part 7A: The Wrong Rabbit Hole

Part 7A Addendum A: Curious Curation

Part 7A Addendum B: “Alice” in Revolt

Part 7A Addendum C: How “Alice” Grew Big in Japan

Part 7B: Alice’s Adventures in the Cousins’ War

Part 7B Addendum: Repainting the Roses

Part 8: Guerrillas and the “Jungle

Part 9A: Through a Magic Mirror Marred

Part 9A Addendum: The Woods “Over the Wall”

Part 9B: The Sum of Its Versions

Part 9C: The “Snow White” Studio

Part 9D: Snowhaus

Part 10: The Little Less-Than

Part 11: Batmouse 3D

Part 12: Mork & Scheherazade


Read previous articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 1: Straightening out “Hunchback”


Notes

  1. 智匠 (Zhi Jiang), 《古今樂錄》 (Gǔjīn Yuèlù, Musical Records of Old and New), ca. 568 CE.
  2. 郭茂倩 (Guō Màoqiàn), 《木蘭詩》 (Mulan shi, The Ballad of Mulan),《樂府詩集》 (Yuèfǔshī, Anthology of Yuefu Poetry), an anthology of lyrical pieces from the Han dynasty (漢朝) through the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period (五代十國, second century BCE–10th century CE).
  3. Map by Khiruge, 2015.
  4. 李白 (Li Bai), 《李波小妹歌》 (Li Bo xiaomei ge, The Ballad of Li Bo’s Younger Sister), and 《紫騮馬》 (Ziliu ma, The Black-Tailed Red Horse), 701-762, both collected in 《全唐詩》 (Quan Tangshi, Complete Tang Poems), 1705. Coincidentally, Li Bai was also a friend of Du Fu.

Straightening out “Hunchback”

Disney’s myths and Victor Hugo (DeDisneyfication, Part 1)

Reading Roland Barthes’ Mythologies helped me put my finger on what bothers me about the Disneyfication of fairy tales and other works.

His definition of “myth” is nonstandard—here it is the creation of symbols. I almost always find the book misfiled in used bookstores and quietly repair their error.

I jotted some notes about Disney’s systematic appropriation of the cultures represented by these tales and how they have been turned into bourgeois myths. But writing a piece so purely critical, though it might provide some entertaining venting of my spleen, seemed somewhat pointless and ultimately unlikely to win me any friends. And indeed, later in the book, Barthes himself cautions:¹

[W]hen a myth reaches the entire community, it is from the latter that the mythologist must become estranged if he wants to liberate the myth.

He came to question the relevance of his work still further when corporations began to approach him to create such myths for them as well.

But then I encountered the excellent article, “Moana and Resistance Spectating”,² and realized this is what I had been doing to some extent and the taking back I’ve tried to do with Norse esoterica would be a much more constructive approach to Disneyfication than a vitriolic rant.

I’d also like to acknowledge a positive aspect to these Disney films—they expose a broad audience to works they might otherwise know nothing about. My hope is this fosters curiosity about the source material, rather than simple acceptance of the symbols the studio has created.

First, let’s define our terms: Disneyfication, as I’ve already noted, involves cultural appropriation and the creation of bourgeois myths. It is one of the most aggressive forms of Hollywoodization, part of which involves a nearly fetishistic focus on the redux, and another is the culture of the final cut which, if it encounters a work of art, seeks to render it into entertainment instead.

A classic example of both comes in the Hollywoodization of the 1985 German film Zuckerbaby into 1989’s horrifically saccharine Baby Cakes: The award-winning German film has the main character, Marianne (Marianne Sägebrecht), throw herself under the wheels of the train being driven by the lover (Eisi Gulp) who has spurned her. Whereas in the nearly unknown US version, the protagonist, renamed Grace (Ricki Lake), decides to quit being afraid of what the world thinks of her and to follow her dreams, becoming a beautician, while Rob (her lover, Craig Sheffer) realizes his girlfriend (Cynthia Dale) will never accept him as he is and he really loves Grace.

Please don’t imagine for a single second the first one is regressive and horrible and the second is empowering—go watch them (if you can even stomach the latter version) and you’ll see a lion whose teeth have been extracted. But the original, as they say in Hollywoodese, “wasn’t going to sell a lot of popcorn.”

So now to the task—first up: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

This infinitely forgettable mid-’90s mediocrity derives from a Victor Hugo novel, so it differs a bit from typical Disney fare.

As with nearly everything Disney, there are numerous reduxes from which they have drawn and adapted this version, including 10 films, nine theatrical versions, three ballets, two TV miniseries, and two musical retellings, to say nothing of all the translations into various languages over the years. The 1939 version, starring Charles Laughton and Maureen O’Hara in particular, seems to have been the basis for the Disney film.

Rather than breaking down the entire plot structures of the Hugo and Disney versions, I’ll focus on a few key differences.

Let’s begin with the title: the original was called Notre-Dame de Paris, placing the focus not on the characters, but on the cathedral itself, as the book was ultimately about the architecture of Paris. Hugo hated the English title, which shifted this emphasis and prompted filmic adaptations criticized as vulgar freak shows. If anything, the double meaning of the title was a reference to Esmeralda, as the dame—“lady” of the cathedral she claims sanctuary in, and who, ultimately, is the main character rather than Quasimodo.

The hunchback is another metaphor for the cathedral that is his home, which in turn is one for Parisian architecture, and even that of every city of significant age: though its features can be seen as monstrous (or at least asymmetrical), ultimately they are a part of a character with a heart of gold.

This theme of the majestic messiness of reality runs through the whole work, encompassing, in particular, the relationships among the characters.

The book is largely a response to a movement to renovate the city afoot in Hugo’s time, of which he was not a fan:³

Thus it is that the wondrous art of the Middle Ages has been treated in almost every country, and especially in France. In its ruin three sorts of inroads are distinguishable, having marred it to different depths; first, Time, which has insensibly made breaches here and there, and rusted its whole surface; then, religious and political revolutions, which, blind and furious in their nature, have tumultuously wreaked their wrath upon it, torn its rich garment of sculpture and carving, shivered its rose windows, shattered its necklaces of arabesques and quaint figures, torn down its statues, here for their mitre, there for their crown; and lastly, changing fashion, growing ever more grotesque and absurd, commencing with the anarchical yet splendid deviations of the Renaissance, have succeeded one another in the unavoidable decline of architecture.

Nonetheless, as implied here, he is willing to accept the changes made, but feels these should stop, leaving the cathedral, the city, the world in this imperfect yet glorious state.

It’s easy to see why Disney would not have been comfortable with this message even if this amount of nuance was anywhere near their wheelhouse, as their stock in trade involves creating sterile consumerist utopias on swampland. Rather than dealing with these metaphors, we are left instead with an empty shell.

Next, let’s move to “Quasi’s” (Tom Hulce) cutesy gargoyle sidekicks, Victor (Charles Kimbrough), Hugo (Jason Alexander), and Laverne (Mary Wickes/ Jane Withers). Disney always likes to insert characters like these, as well as, in this film, a horse named Achilles (apparently entirely to set up the laff line “Achilles, heel!”). Certainly, I understand their thinking; many of the dialogues internal in novels and fairy tales become conversations between these creatures and the people they are associated with—not to mention the toy sales. But this trio is particularly weird and unneeded, and while the names of the first two form a dubious homage to the author from whose work the film is drawn, the last one is wackily named after one of the Andrews sisters.

On to the Cour des miracles: Disney’s Esmeralda (Demi Moore/ Heidi Mollenhauer) entrusts Quasi with a pendant containing a map to the gypsies’ hideout, the Court of Miracles, which proves problematic when it falls into the wrong hands.

This is simply ridiculous. While the many slums of Paris were known by this collective name, the film implies there is one such place, and its location is somehow secret. Some claimed these were simply squalid cesspits of lawless villainy, while others held guilds of thieves and beggars organized their trades, and, in order to be exempt from “taxes” to the Grand Coësre, archissupots provided lessons on argot to new recruits. The Grand Coësre is the head of the thieves’ and beggar’s guild, and an archissupot is a scholarly rogue—both themselves argot terms.

These areas, which inspired both Notre-Dame de Paris and Les Misérables, were cleared, an effort beginning in 1667, and finally completed by the Haussmannization of Paris in the late 19th century. Georges-Eugène Hausmann’s renovation of Paris occurred between 1853 and 1870, following the publication of Notre-Dame de Paris, so even though his work was celebrated, Hugo’s warnings were not heeded. Ironically, one of the 12 roads that make up the Étoile, where the Arc de Triomphe sits, is Avenue Victor-Hugo.

The endings of the two works differ the most dramatically: In the animated film, Frollo (Tony Jay) “accidentally” falls to his death in the molten lead-flooded streets surrounding the cathedral, Esmeralda marries Phoebus (Kevin Kline), the Captain of Frollo’s guard (Captain of the Archers in the novel). and in a Baby Cakes-esque turn of events, Quasi is accepted by society.

Hugo, on the other hand, has Frollo turn Esmeralda, condemned of attempting to murder Phoebus, over to the troops, and when he laughs during her hanging, Quasimodo pushes him from the top of the cathedral to his death.

The hunchback later finds Esmeralda’s dead body at the mass grave for criminals at Montfaucon and remains there to eventually perish from starvation. Their intertwined skeletons are found some time later, which, when an attempt is made to separate them, crumble into dust.

In closing, I actually doff my hat to Disney for embracing one dark element of the original in particular: Frollo’s mixture of lust and loathing for Esmeralda, treatment of which, mainly embodied in the musical number, “Hellfire”, barely skirted a PG rating. It would have been easy to leave out, but the creative team seems to have successfully fought the studio execs to keep it in. As it’s ultimately a commentary on the Catholic Church’s hypocrisy, it’s a fairly charged theme to have made it into such an otherwise vanilla effort.


Read subsequent articles in the DeDisneyfication series

Part 2: Making over “Mulan”

Part 2 Addendum B: Your Western Wuxia Is Weak

Part 3A: “Hercules”: Myths and Mistakes

Part 3B: Doing Hera’s Work on “Hercules”

Part 4: Tale As Old As Agriculture

Part 4 Addendum: The Enchanted and the Postmodern

Part 5: Putting “Pocahontas” to Rest

Part 5 Addendum: Powhatan’s Mantle

Part 6: Trouble with “Tarzan”

Part 7A: The Wrong Rabbit Hole

Part 7A Addendum A: Curious Curation

Part 7A Addendum B: “Alice” in Revolt

Part 7A Addendum C: How “Alice” Grew Big in Japan

Part 7B: Alice’s Adventures in the Cousins’ War

Part 7B Addendum: Repainting the Roses

Part 8: Guerrillas and the “Jungle”

Part 9A: Through a Magic Mirror Marred

Part 9A Addendum: The Woods “Over the Wall”

Part 9B: The Sum of its Versions

Part 9C: The “Snow White” Studio

Part 9D: Snowhaus

Part 10: The Little Less-Than

Part 11: Batmouse 3D

Part 12: Mork & Scheherazade


Notes

  1. Roland Barthes, Mythologies, 1957.
  2. Richard Wolfgramm, “Moana and Resistance Spectating”, November 2016.
  3. Victor Hugo, Notre-Dame de Paris (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame), 1831. I’ve used J. Carroll Beckwith’s 1892 translation.

Translating Rilke’s Magic

Poetry as incantation (Translating Poetry, Part 3)

While I have pored over Borgesessays on translation, particularly of poetry, I still nearly missed a line finally revealing his thoughts on the topic:¹

Words become incantations and poetry wants to be magic.

Even his essays are far from straightforward and must be carefully read. This sentence is drawn from “Two Ways to Translate” (“Las dos maneras de traducir”), and it is not at all elaborated on.

Nonetheless, I find myself in accord: the process of reading poetry is different from reading other types of works. Or at least it should be, although there are some works of prose for which the process is like reading poetry—Finnegans Wake comes to mind.

William Butler Yeats echoes the idea in “The Two Trees”:²

[… ] The shaking of its leafy head
Has given the waves their melody
And made my lips and music wed
Murmuring a wizard song for thee […]

The poet’s choices must be carefully made, but even more is demanded of the reader, who must study and perform the magic. You can’t simply glean the meaning and move on; each line, and maybe each word, must be lingered over, read aloud, and allowed to reverberate, whereas in normal reading even moving your lips provokes derision.

There is perhaps no better example of this than Rainer Maria Rilke, whose work is often described as mystical and lyrically intense. His words are invocations, using haunting images to express highly existential themes, such as the difficulties of communion with the ineffable in the disbelief, solitude, and profound anxiety of the fin de siècle.

So when a friend posted a version of a Rilke poem on Facebook, it caught my eye:³

Understand, I’ll slip quietly
away from the noisy crowd
when I see the pale
stars rising, blooming over the oaks.
I’ll pursue solitary pathways
through the pale twilit meadows,
with only this one dream:
you come too.

Some great stuff here, but again, I wanted to see it as Rilke wrote it, which was:

Weisst du, ich will mich schleichen
leise aus lautem Kreis,
wenn ich erst die bleichen
Sterne über den Eichen
blühen weiß.
Wege will ich erkiesen,
die selten wer betritt
in blassen Abendwiesen—
und keinen Traum, als diesen:
Du gehst mit.

I found the original more haunting and beautiful, and containing themes I relate to. It’s just two sentences, but invites the imagined lover/ reader to flee the urban masses into a luminous countryside.

There’s also an ABAAB rhyming scheme present, but I remain committed to free verse as being the best choice for the translation of poetry. The rhymes rely mainly on the -en endings of both plurals and infinitives in German (used for all the As).

While it might seem a strange aesthetic to apply, Einstürzende Neubauten frontman Blixa Bargeld’s lyrical style of using single-syllable words rich with multiple meanings is one I’ve long since adopted in my own writing, and seemed especially appropriate here. At one point, he simply made a list of these evocative words and used them as lyrics, described as “sound scenery”. “Compressors in the Dark”, whose refrain, “ich gehe jetzt” (“I’m leaving now”) is nearly a reply to Rilke.⁴

These are a few of the sensibilities that went into my version:

Know that I will slink
quietly from the noisy crowd,
when first I sense that ghostly
stars crest the oaks
blooming white.
I’ll choose to make tracks
where a rare few walk
in pale twilight meadows—
with no dream but this:
You go with me.

The final line I deemed then, and still do, a bit overly literal, and perhaps demonstrative of the limitations of the English language, but perhaps this is a result only of my own “exhaustion” as a translator, as Borges would say.

I remarked at the time, and still fancy the Japanese phrase issho ni (一緒に) might express the idea better than English, or even the original German could. It is often translated simply as “together”, but as with a lot of the diction we’re dealing with, the nuances run deep.


Read previous articles in the Translating Poetry series

Part 1: Faithful Treason

Part 2: Dante Between Two Ways


Notes

  1. Jorge Luis Borges, “Las dos maneras de traducir” (“Two Ways to Translate”), 1926, collected in English in On Writing, Suzanne Jill Levine ed., 2010.
  2. William Butler Yeats, “The Two Trees”, The Rose, 1893.
  3. Rainer Maria Rilke, “Weisst du, ich will mich schleichen” (sometimes called “Passages” in English, but actually untitled), Advent, 1897. I haven’t been able to identify the translator of this version, but it’s ubiquitous.
  4. Einstürzende Neubauten, “Compressors in the Dark”, Supporter Album No. 1, 2003.

Dante Between Two Ways

Classical and romantic translation and “Inferno” (Translating Poetry, Part 2)

In “Two Ways to Translate”, Jorge Luis Borges identifies these two ways as classical and romantic. He describes the former thus:¹

The classical way of thinking is interested only in the work of art, never the artist. The classics believe in absolute perfection and seek it out. They despise localisms, oddities, contingencies.

And the latter:

Romantics never seek the work of art, but rather the man himself. […] That reverence for the I, for the irreplaceable human difference that is any I, justifies literal translations.

The essay concludes with two representative translations of the first line of Martín Fierro, an epic poem about the titular gaucho by Argentine José Hernández:²

Aquí me pongo a cantar. Al compás de la vigüela

We can translate them in a long-winded literal way: “In this same place where I am, I am beginning to sing with my guitar,” and with high-sounding paraphrase: “Here, in the company of my guitar, I begin to sing, […].”

For comparison, the “standard translation” offered in the essay is:

And here I begin to sing—to the rhythm of the vihuela.

Borges taxonomizes the classical and romantic, but while he decries poetic cliché, he does not seem to favor either type. And nor do I. Elements of each seem appropriate to me in different situations.

By way of illustration, let’s look at some Dante. When Robert Pinsky’s translation of Inferno came out, I heard good things and picked it up. A passage I had not remembered from my previous reading caught my eye:³

In that part of the young year when the sun
Goes under Aquarius to rinse his beams,
And the long nights already begin to wane

Toward half the day, and when the hoarfrost mimes
The image of her white sister upon the ground—
But only a while, because her pen, it seems,

Is not sharp long—a peasant who has found
That he is running short of fodder might rise
And go outside and see the fields have turned

To white, and slap his thigh, and back in the house
Pace grumbling here and there like some poor wretch
Who can’t see what to do; and then he goes

Back out, and finds hope back within his reach,
Seeing in how little time the world outside
Has changed its face, and takes his crook to fetch

His sheep to pasture.

First, this simile that begins Canto XXIV is one of the longest in the work, a welcome reprieve from Dante’s extensive revenge fantasies and classical references. Second, I loved the bucolic imagery which then shifts to refer to Virgil (the peasant) who is leading Dante (his flock),⁴ which, of course, is also classic Christian symbolism.

But the structure is frankly annoying—basically the last bit of each sentence has been shoved into the next line throughout, and the rhymes are pretty weak. An excellent illustration of the problem of trying to preserve an original’s meter, especially Dante’s intricate, interlocking terza rima scheme.

Sun/ wane, beam/ mimes/ seems, ground/ found/ turned, rise/ house/ goes, wretch/ reach/ fetch are some rough rhymes, but it seems meter and rhyme were Pinsky’s secondary focus, as he says in his Translator’s Note, apologizing for the difficulties.

I’ll let him off the hook just a bit by noting even in more rhyme-rich Italian, and with all his poetic skill, Dante rhymes both tempra and faccia with themselves in the passage.

It was second nature to consult the original:⁵

In quella parte del giovanetto anno
che ’l sole i crin sotto l’Aquario tempra
e già le notti al mezzo dì sen vanno,

quando la brina in su la terra assempra
l’imagine di sua sorella bianca,
ma poco dura a la sua penna tempra,

lo villanello a cui la roba manca,
si leva, e guarda, e vede la campagna
biancheggiar tutta; ond’ei si batte l’anca,

ritorna in casa, e qua e là si lagna,
come ‘l tapin che non sa che si faccia;
poi riede, e la speranza ringavagna,

veggendo ‘l mondo aver cangiata faccia
in poco d’ora, e prende suo vincastro
e fuor le pecorelle a pascer caccia.

And, as I have suggested, my version is indeed a mix. Just as with the Aeneid passage, I feel it’s important to understand the original and its context, but it’s still more important the metaphors of the original make sense in English:

In that moment of the fledgling year when the Sun douses his crown beneath Aquarius and the night becomes half a day’s length,

When the Frost traces the image of her white sister upon the ground, even though her quill’s sharpness lasts but briefly,

The peasant, low on fodder, rises and gazes out, and seeing all the countryside gone pale, slaps his thigh,

He turns back indoors, lamenting to and fro—a poor wretch who knows not what to do; but then, returning, his hope revives,

Seeing how the world’s face has changed in so short a while, takes up his staff and drives his lambs to pasture.

I won’t go into a belabored discussion of the reasoning behind each word I chose, but just to give one example, the original has crin—“hair” as what the sun is “putting under Aquarius”, and Pinsky has the sun “rinse his beams”, both of which seem strange to my ear.

I gave the sun a crown, which seemed a more sensible image using its triple meaning as the item of regalia—and of course the sun is king of the heavens—and the sun has an aurora using the cognate word corona, and also the top of the head.

In any case, I think my overall rendering lets the depth and resonance of the original shine through.


Read subsequent articles in the Translating Poetry series

Part 3: Translating Rilke’s Magic


Read previous articles in the Translating Poetry series

Part 1: Faithful Treason


Notes

  1. Jorge Luis Borges, “Las dos maneras de traducir” (“Two Ways to Translate”), 1926, collected in English in On Writing, Suzanne Jill Levine ed., 2010.
  2. José Hernández, Martín Fierro (originally, El Gaucho Martín Fierro), 1872., quoted in ibid.
  3. Dante Alighieri, Inf. Canto XXIV, 1–15, Divina Commedia, ca. 1308–21, Robert Pinsky, trans., The Inferno of Dante: A New Verse Translation, 1994.
  4. That is, the characters of Dante and Virgil.
  5. Dante, 1308–21.

Faithful Treason

Iterative drafts and the myth of the definitive text (Translating Poetry, Part 1)

In Jorge Luis Borges’ essay, “Two Ways to Translate”, he begins by citing the Italian quip traduttore, traditore (“translator, traitor”), which he then goes on to discredit thus:¹

[I] believe in the good translations of literary works (not to mention didactic or speculative works) and am of the opinion that even poetry is translatable.

Nonetheless, in another essay on the topic, “The Homeric Versions”, he also concedes that it is not easy:²

[N]o problem is as consubstantial to literature and its modest mysteries as the one posed by translation. […] Translation […] seems destined to illustrate aesthetic debate. The model to be imitated is a visible text, not an immeasurable labyrinth of former projects or a submission to the momentary temptation of fluency.

He discusses one specific problem, that of a shared context between writer and reader:³

Evaristo Carriego’s poems will appear slighter to a Chilean’s ear than to myself: I will have a feeling for those Southside sunsets, the local characters, and even the details of a landscape not registered but latent, such as a corral, a fig tree behind a rose-colored wall, a bonfire in the street.

Pointing back to the notion framed in traduttore, traditore—that the original text is somehow sacrosanct, and all translations therefore are lesser works, he continues:⁴

To assume that every recombination of elements is necessarily inferior to its original form is to assume that draft nine is necessarily inferior to draft H [i.e. Homer’s draft]—for there only can be drafts. The concept of the “definitive text” corresponds only to religion or exhaustion.

Long before I first encountered Borges, and especially these lesser-known essays of his, I was tinkering with conlangs, and one of the ways I would test them is to try to use them to translate poetry. Within fairly brief passages, I could quickly see if a lexicon needed expanding, if the grammar and morphology I was creating were sufficient to the task.

The first poetry translation I did into a real language was, rather oddly, of a Chinese poem into Japanese. The poem by Du Fu (杜甫), reminded me of haiku, both in its succinctness and its feeling of mono no aware (もののあわれ); a wistful sense of the ephemerality of reality.

Indeed, the famous haiku (俳句) poet, Matsuo Bashō (松尾 芭蕉), possibly influenced by this poem, penned a quite similar one. Du Fu’s runs:⁵

蟬聲集古寺,鳥影度寒塘。

Cicadas’ voices echo in the old temple.
Birds’ shadows fly across the cold pond.

The matching of the exact parts of speech and relationships of the words in the two lines—termed bookmatching—was another intriguing element that caused it to stick in my mind.

And so, when I was working in Japan, where I was doing a great deal of translation of Japanese game text into English, I decided to share it with some of my coworkers, as:⁶

蝉の声古い寺院で響きます。
鳥の影寒い池で飛びます

Semi no koe, furui tera de hibikimasu.
Tori no kage, samui ike de tobimasu.

Translating poetry from other languages into English began for me with a passage from Virgil, and my experience followed Borges’ description closely. In all the examples discussed in this series, I encountered the work in English translation, was struck by it, consulted the original, and executed my own version.

During the development of Diablo II, I was looking for an inspirational piece regarding hell, and the one from Dante’s Inferno was feeling a bit tired—“Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate […]” (“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here….”).⁷

It’s actually a great passage, but was one of the pieces I had been using to test conlangs for some time. I ran across this section of the Aeneid:⁸

Just in the gate, and in the jaws of hell,
Revengeful Cares and sullen Sorrows dwell;
And pale Diseases, and repining Age,
Want, Fear, and Famine‘s unresisted rage;
Here Toils, and Death, and Death’s half-brother Sleep
(Forms terrible to view), their sentry keep;
With anxious Pleasures of a guilty mind;
Deep Frauds before, and open Force behind;
The Furies iron beds; and Strife, that shakes
Her hissing tresses, and unfolds her snakes.

Overall, it was interesting, and in fact, the Inferno passage is an homage to this one. But some of it felt a bit clumsy to me, in particular, the forced meter and rhyme: In this version, translator and Poet Laureate John Dryden expands the original by an entire line to make it work.

So, although I’ll admit to being a Latin novice at the time, I turned to the source, finding:

vestibulum ante ipsum primisque in faucibus Orci
Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae,
pallentesque habitant Morbi tristisque Senectus,
et Metus et malesuada Fames ac turpis Egestas,
terribiles visu formae, Letumque Labosque;
tum consanguineus Leti Sopor et mala mentis
Gaudia, mortiferumque adverso in limine Bellum,
ferreique Eumenidum thalami et Discordia demens
vipereum crinem vittis innexa cruenti.

I took on my own translation, yielding:

Before the entrance, at the very maw of Orcus,
Grief and unrelenting Anxiety make their Lair,
Here pallid dwells Disease, sad Senescence,
And Fear, corrupting Hunger, and squalid Poverty,
Shapes terrible to behold, Death and Exhaustion;
Then Sleep, of one blood with Death, and Dark
Joys, and against the gate, deadly War,
The Fates in rooms of iron and frenzied Strife,
Her snaky hair bound in ribbons oozing gore.

Attempting to preserve the meter, much less adapt a different one, seemed a fool’s errand, and rhyming is—let’s be honest—a bit of a silly linguistic game. Instead, I was interested in the metaphors the original work was dealing in, the resonances and nuances of its diction.

My focus initially was on using English cognates of the Latin words when they were available, but words like senescence later seemed like they’d only appear on the SAT. I did have enough restraint to not use consanguineous, and many more Latin words that have been borrowed directly into English, since at a certain point it would cease being a translation.

Furthermore, when I was working on Gods and Heroes, I came to understand the passage presented several lesser deities of the Roman pantheon, and these had accepted English equivalents. Dryden, too, seems to have been unaware of the standard renderings of these deities’ names. I’ve capitalized them in my translation, below.

Additionally, my ability to parse the fairly complex Latin had increased significantly, I had studied Roman culture in great depth, and I had read the Aeneid in its entirety. This resulted in my attempting another pass:

Before the antechamber, even in the very gullet of Orcus,
Grief and unrelenting Cares have made their lair,
Here abide discoloring Diseases, melancholy Old-Age,
And Fear, corrupting Hunger, and squalid Want,
Forms dreadful to behold: Death and Distress;
Next, Death’s kinsman Sleep, and the soul’s
Guilty Joys, and opposite the threshold, death-bringing War,
And the Furies’ chambers of iron, and frenzied Strife,
Her snaky tresses bound in a gore-smeared band.

As far as a series of drafts, mine improved by coming to grips with the issues Borges pointed out. And in fact, these drafts, as Borges suggests, are merely some relatively stable ones, as there were many more in between them.

Greater understanding of the original language and cultural context, and an attempt to bring that information to a modern English-speaking audience informed the more recent one. Rather than focusing on cognates of the original Latin words in English, I moved toward diction relatively accessible to a moderately educated reader, but containing resonances attempting the depth of the model’s.

I’ll close with one final Borges quote summing up his (and my) thoughts on the topic:⁹

The original is unfaithful to the translation.


Addendum

I quite recently learned from a course on Roman architecture  the term fauces, an inflected form of which, faucibus, appears in the first line of the Virgil verse, which both Dryden and I took in an anatomical sense of “jaws, maw, gullet”, is actually an architectural feature common to Roman houses.¹⁰

As further such language is used by Virgil (vestibulum, cubilia, limine, thalami), we can conclude his intent is to juxtapose these mundane domestic elements with the horrible creatures appearing within them, similar to the white vitta (“hairband”), and the blood staining it. Yet another draft was therefore needed:

Before the anteroom, even at the very entrance of Orcus,
Grief and unrelenting Cares have made their parlors,
Here dwell discoloring Diseases, melancholic Old-Age,
And Fear, corrupting Hunger, and squalid Want,
Forms dreadful to behold: Death and Distress;
Next, Death’s kinsman Sleep, and the soul’s
Guilty Joys, and opposite the doorway, death-bringing War,
And the Furies’ iron bedrooms, and frenzied Strife,
Her snaky tresses bound in a gore-smeared band.


Read subsequent articles in the Translating Poetry series

Part 2: Dante Between Two Ways

Part 3: Translating Rilke’s Magic


Notes

  1. Jorge Luis Borges, “Las dos maneras de traducir” (“Two Ways to Translate”), 1926, collected in English in On Writing, Suzanne Jill Levine ed., 2010.
  2. Borges, “Las versiones homéricas” (“The Homeric Versions”), 1932, also collected in ibid.
  3. Borges, 1926.
  4. Borges, 1932.
  5. 杜甫 (Du Fu), 《和裴迪登新津寺寄王侍郎》 (A Companion Piece to Pei Di’s “Climbing Xinjin Temple, Sent to  Vice-Director Wang”), 3–4, 760. I found the original after a great deal of searching, and it turns out this was just one couplet of a longer work. Most translations I found have “gather” rather than “echo”, as I heard it in some Cal prof’s lecture.
  6. Looking at this now, the spatial relations need some work….
  7. Dante Alighieri, Inf., Canto III.9, ca. 1308–1320.
  8. Publius Vergilius Maro (Virgil), Aeneis (Aeneid), VI, 273–81, 19 BCE, John Dryden, trans. 1697.
  9. “[E]l original es infiel a la traducción.” Borges, “Sobre el Vathek de William Beckford” (“On William Beckford’s Vathek”), 1943, collected in English in Selected Non-Fictions, Eliot Weinberger, ed., 1999.
  10. Diana E. E. Kleiner, “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous: Houses and Villas at Pompeii”, Roman Architecture, 2016.

The Role of the Ear-Lopper

The outsider as a source of innovation (Creator Styles, Part 2)

Some commented on my previous article on creator styles, I was comparing apples and oranges—individual artists versus the team dynamic at work in video game development—but was I? Actually, schools of art provide something of a corollary. In these schools, individuals with shared goals work closely together, learning from one another to advance the aesthetic they are trying to achieve. As David Galenson notes in Old Masters and Young Geniuses, we should remember:¹

[A]rtistic innovations are not made by isolated geniuses, but are usually based on the lessons of teachers and the collaboration of colleagues.

Certainly, there remain differences in these contexts, as the artists are still creating their own individual works, but there are also situations like studios where works would be executed under the name and direction of a master by various artists, etc., and the Brothers le Nain even worked on one another’s paintings, to such an extent art historians are still trying to puzzle out which of the brothers is responsible for which elements of which works.

And so, as I continued to peruse Galenson’s work, a passage leapt off the page at me:²

What appears to be necessary for radical conceptual innovation is not youth, but an absence of acquired habits of thought that inhibit sudden departures from existing conventions.

He’s talking about van Gogh, an artist instrumental in the Impressionist movement. Obviously, using him as the example here is charged because of his mental instability and eventual suicide, but it’s also inarguable he was an artistic genius. He had his own ideas, so he moved to the middle of nowhere, perfected his style, and then, unfortunately, went crazy.

And, in the team-based creation process of games, a van Gogh sounds like a troublemaker, right? There needs to be unity; everyone on the same page, rowing in the same direction. Wrong:³

[W]ith astonishing speed van Gogh gained a knowledge of the methods and goals not only of Impressionism but also of Neo-Impressionism, and he became acquainted with Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, and a number of other young artists who were developing a new Symbolist art.

And, yet we know van Gogh clashed with his contemporaries, as well as his brother Theo, repeatedly. When he left Paris for Arles, it was partly from exhaustion from his work, having produced some 200 paintings during his two years in the capital. But also because his personal style was diverging from Impressionism and he knew the group would never accept it. In his own words:⁴

Instead of trying to reproduce exactly what I see before me, I make more arbitrary use of color to express myself more forcefully. […] I have tried to express the terrible passions of humanity by means of the red and green […].

This passage shows how he is moving past the strict dictates of the movement to explore new territory showing the way to Symbolism, Fauvism, and Expressionism. But the clashes still weren’t over—when Gauguin came to visit and paint with him, they had a massive quarrel: van Gogh threatened his colleague with a straight razor and then used it to slice off part of his own ear.

In the world of game development, I have championed passionate people, and especially those whose views are not mainstream. This can be a tough row to hoe: management typically dislikes disruption and sees “company culture” as monolithic; a world where everyone plays nice and gets along. My view is different perspectives, devil’s advocates, red-teaming, as long as they can be kept constructive and no one loses an ear, make a team stronger.

In my brief encounters with Hollywood, I’ve seen how sycophancy can distort the creative process: those who should be challenging an artist instead simply say yes. I’ll provide one salient anecdote: when a coworker of mine and I were on the set of Antitrust,⁵ Tim Robbins improvised a line about creativity, saying, “Use the left side of the brain”. Everyone fell over each other to confirm it was correct. It’s not.⁶ My colleague, another pilgrim in this unholy land, looked at me imploringly. “We’re not here to fight this fight,” I told him, sotto voce, “they’ll just have to fix it in post.”

Perhaps I relate to the ear-lopper role because I’ve lived it. When I got into game development, I did so very much as an outsider, in terms of nearly everything: influences, experience, values, goals. I was perhaps even more of an outsider than van Gogh—he at least was attracted to a school of painting, while I entered a medium wherein various genres and styles coexist, many times even within companies. On top of this, my first real development role was in Japan.

Working in Japan was pretty crazy—basically nearly no one in the company had the intent to make games, instead they were recruited as unskilled workers graduating from university to become sararīman (サラリーマン). Derived from English “salary-man”, the term refers to white-collar workers for corporations but also implies lifetime employment, for whichever company makes the best offer, including banks, or electronics manufacturers, or whatever. Whether they came to have passion or even aptitude for their work was a matter of complete happenstance. And indeed, even those who succeeded often did so only to see their ambitions crushed, as they typically had little control over the strict hierarchy within which they worked. Of the handful of Americans I worked with in this organization, none were on the creative side: they were translators or programmers, just as likely to fit into their roles as their Japanese counterparts. I’m not sure if any besides me continued in games—I certainly haven’t run across any of them.

Then there was me. I’ve already detailed some of my background in earlier posts, so I won’t belabor the point here. On top of that, I came from art school, believing in the integrity and grand potential of the medium, rather than thinking of games in terms of a set of genre-defined components.

And indeed, although I clashed strongly with many teams, especially early in my career, I feel it is appropriate to credit the successes of games I’ve worked on to my nontraditional approach. The very name of this blog, which comes from the Japanese expression, deru kugi wa utareru (出る釘は打たれる), reflects this. The phrase roughly translates to “the nail that sticks up gets pounded down”, though I’ve taken only the first part, having avoided the second.


Read subsequent articles in the Creator Styles series

Part 3: Closing the Circle


Read previous articles in the Creator Styles series

Part 1: Passing on Picasso


Notes

  1. David Galenson, Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity, 2007.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Vincent van Gogh, Letter to Theo, Arles, ca. August 1888.
  5. Antitrust, 2001.
  6. The pop psychology notion on the lateralization of the brain holds the left side is logical and the right creative, but current science doesn’t bear this out, so it’s actually doubly wrong.

So Long, Satire

How political humor has paved the way to political hell

No more Daily Show; no more Last Week Tonight; no more Full Frontal; no more Real Time. I’m off them all. It will be hard, and it will feel like a loss, but I’m solidly done. “Why?” you might well ask, and I’ll tell you: It’s Malcolm Gladwell’s fault.

I’ve read pretty much everything Gladwell has written, and when it somehow got by me, a friend told me about his podcast, Revisionist History. I heartily and unreservedly recommend RevHist and all Gladwell’s work¹—he’s made a career of questioning conventional wisdom and digging into poorly understood and overlooked topics.

In one RevHist episode, “The Satire Paradox”,² he covered political humor, focusing on whether it was effective in changing opinions or achieving actual change. It resonated with some current events when I was listening to it, but that’s as far as it went—I agreed with Gladwell that we shouldn’t let politicians off the hook by ignoring their political issues and instead treating them with humor.

But Gladwell did his homework, and he shares that homework with us. For every episode of his RevHist, he supplies a section of reference docs, and reading, watching, and listening to this additional information is a great way to get some of the depth his 45-minute format doesn’t permit.

For this particular episode, one of the reference docs was an article called “Sinking Giggling into the Sea”, discussing Harry Mount’s The Wit and Wisdom of Boris Johnson. And this piece gives the topic both barrels. Or maybe every possible barrel.³

The article begins by discussing the rise of anti-establishment political humor in the UK. Coe traces the lineage of the genre from Beyond the Fringe to Monty Python, Have I got News for You, and That Was the Week That Was. He points out the creators of this brand of comedy are essentially those “trained to lead” the establishment they criticize, engaging in some good-natured rebellion during or after attending Oxford or Cambridge. He also points out being anti is a vague and not necessarily pointful position.

Then he gets mean. He cites Steve Fielding, introduced only as “an academic”:

[I]n accepting this view of politicians as uniformly corrupt and useless, the public are embracing a dangerous new stereotype, since it ‘can only further reinforce mistrust in the public realm, a mistrust that some political forces seek to exploit’.

The Fielding thread goes on:

The idea that politicians are morally inferior to the rest of us is ‘a convenient view, for it means we, the audience, the voters, are not to blame for anything: we are not to blame because we are the victims of a politics gone wrong’.

Indeed, the amazing depths to which the tone of political discourse has fallen can easily be seen to reflect this. The “low standards” to which we hold egomaniacal charlatans are the standards we have created and accepted. The fact it’s become difficult to distinguish news from satire has been so often remarked on #NotTheOnion has become a thing, but this is neither weird nor eerie; it’s a causal relationship.

Turning to the comedians themselves, Peter Cook, a widely acknowledged “comic genius” and perhaps one of the greatest practitioners of this form of humor, seems to have grown to understand its limits:

Famously, when opening his club, The Establishment, in Soho in 1961, Cook remarked that he was modelling it on ‘those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to stop the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War’.

Michael Frayn, a critic, takes even squarer aim:

[T]he middle classes felt some vague guilt accumulating for the discrepancy between their prosperous security and the continuing misery of those who persisted in failing to conform, by being black, or queer, or mad, or old. Conceivably they felt the need to disclaim with laughter any responsibility for this situation, and so relieve their consciences without actually voting for anything which might have reduced their privileges.

Bullseye.

The piece returns to Boris Johnson, whom the book reviewed is ultimately about, and who has been able to cleverly take advantage of this climate to rise to political power, even satirizing himself in order to render himself “safe” to the public through laughter. This bullying xenophobic demagogue, with clear echoes this side of the pond, is the type of political leader we have come to deserve.

So goodbye Trevor, adieu John, adios Sam, and auf wiederschauen Bill.


Notes

  1. Things have changed since the writing of this article.
  2. Malcolm Gladwell, “The Satire Paradox”, Revisionist History, August 2016.
  3. Jonathan Coe, “Sinking Giggling into the Sea”, London Review of Books, July 2013. I’ve continued to quote this article throughout.

Magical Staves

Old Norse magical symbols, and ones that aren’t (Viking Esoterica, Part 3)

A while back, a friend on Facebook shared a link to an interview with Björk from 1988. In the video, she’s talking some endearing nonsense about televisions and lying poets. But what struck me immediately was the tattoo on her upper arm.

I’ll cut to the chase; this strange, eight-legged thing is a Galdrastafur, or Icelandic Magical Stave. This particular one is the Vegvisir, which is meant to keep one from losing their way. The literal translation is veg, “way” + visir, “guide”.

It seems to have been tempting for translators to relate it to German Wegweiser, “signpost”, but while it comprises cognate terms, this is incorrect. It has also been characterized as a “Viking compass” because of its eight legs, but this is also wrong.

There is a wide variety of these staves, with my personal favorite being the Smjörhnútur (lit. “butter-knot”), which protects one from bewitched butter. I might even have gotten a Björkesque tat of it, but unfortunately, it’s a bit nondescript; it just looks like an irregular pentagram with a vertical line down the middle. Additionally, as a fencer, I don’t cotton much to the idea of someone jabbing me with a sharp metal object without my being allowed to jab back.

Unfortunately, for those interested in the historical lore of the Vikings, these are not that. In fact, they are from a much later date, apparently around the 15th–19th centuries, with most of the corpus coming from the 17th, so in historical terms it would be a mistake on the order of attributing Leaves of Grass to Dante Alighieri.

As with the other elements of Nordic esoterica I’ve discussed in this series, this is partly because of the appropriation of these symbols by various groups, and in particular, Neo-Pagans, though it should be noted, also black metal groups.

The best-known Galdrastafur by far is the Ægishjálmur. Performing a quick Google search for it returns “about 166,000 results”, more than triple the population of 50,400 in Iceland in 1703.

Indeed, in addition to many a tattoo, it has seen increasing use in Vikingy settings of late, appearing in particular on round wooden shields. And again, this is a massive anachronism. It is true, however, that while never used by Vikings, these signs do incorporate elements of runes and pagan symbols.

The place in history of the Galdrastafir matches more closely with the Maleus Malefacarum. The emphasis on witchcraft is a demonstration of the turning back toward superstition of a people who have nominally accepted the Christian faith. Similar to the pentacles of the Clavicula Salomonis or the magical signs, even including some figures quite similar to Galdrastafir, on this scroll I took a picture of in the Tiroler Volkunstmuseum (Tyrolian Museum of Folk Art), Innsbruck.

The Ægishjálmur is even shown in a Wikipedia article labeled as Ægishjálmr, with the article’s name having been partly backformed from Icelandic into Old Norse—in which it should properly be ǿgishjalmr

To be fair, this word does exist in Old Norse; it was just never used to refer to this symbol, as it hadn’t been invented yet. Instead, it literally meant: “helm of terror”, which appears to be skaldic language for a terror-striking glance rather than a physical object.

Let me quickly note Icelandic, which some mistakenly think is synonymous with Old Norse, features several changes to both orthography and pronunciation, including -r → -ur for strong masculine noun endings, made, one imagines, to avoid the difficulty in pronouncing a consonant as its own syllable, but it also creates an -ur/-ir pluralization that is linguistically abhorrent. Other North Germanic languages simply dropped the ending, e.g., the Old Norse form of my name is Stigr (the ⟨e⟩ simply representing a modern spelling variant which the Novelist with the Dragon Tattoo also used).

Back to the ǿgishjalmr, we read in Fáfnismál

[Fáfnir] k[vað]:
“[…]Ægis hjálm
bar ek um alda sonum
meðan ek um menjum lág;
einn rammari
hugðumk öllum vera,
fannka ek marga mögu.

[Sigurðr] k[vað]:
Ægis hjálmr
bergr einugi
hvar [s] skulu reiðir vega;
þá það finnr
er með fleirum kjömr
að engi er einna hvatastr.

Fafnir said:
“The ǿgishjalmr I wore among the sons of men,
while I lay on the neck-rings;
more powerful than all I thought myself to be,
I didn’t encounter any equals”

Sigurd said:
“The ǿgishjalmr protects no one,
Where furious men have to fight;
A man finds out when he comes among a multitude;
That no one is bravest of all.”

The conversation seems not to be about an actual helm, but the fear the dragon Fafnir instills in mortals. If this is so, the place of the word hjalmr in the kenning is locating the cause of fear in the head, or more specifically, the face and eyes.

All the Magical Staves are essentially material manifestations of Abracadabra—meaningless mummery whose effect, if any, is psychological. These signs essentially represent an evolution: Before writing, there were symbols. Then, when writing was created, it was magic in itself, as we have seen in our discussion of runes. The defixiones of the Romans, the papyri (πάπυροι) of the Greeks, are magical formulae written simply using words—sometimes accompanied by magical charakteres, but the formulae take primacy—and even in Sumerian, one of the first written languages, apotropaic tablets, as well as ones bearing curses fit this pattern. It is only later, when words are no longer obscure enough, symbols return.³

udug’khulne alaḫulne puakuba!

May the evil udugs and the evil alas tremble!

In this Sumerian incantation, an udug (𒌜) is a ghost/ demon of the desert, mountain, sea, and tomb, while an ala (𒀀𒇲) is a demon of suffering; the two are often mentioned together. In both cases, but particularly the latter, the descriptor khul (𒅆𒌨)—“evil”—seems fairly redundant, but it seems good utuks were sometimes called on to combat the evil ones.

So, did the Vikings use magical symbols other than runes and bindrunes? Yes, there were a few.

The best known of these is the Thor’s hammer (Þórrshmmarr). This is often shown as a simple T-shaped emblem of the thunder god’s weapon. Some say this might be a cross variant, like a Tau cross, but the crosses found in post-Christian Scandinavian carvings are of a fairly distinct type, and the serpents that also tend to appear with the Þórrshamarr don’t make sense to Christian symbolism, whereas Þórr is a dragonslayer of some renown.

Even as late as the turn of the last century, a T shape was traditionally carved above doorways in southern Tyrol (I’m not sure why the Tyroleans keep turning up here…), for protection from many kinds of evils but storms, in particular. In runic carvings, it is clear it is an invocation of the god to hallow and protect.

The so-called valknutr is another one. So-called because the term is actually a modern coinage, while its true name is unknown, although many point to this passage as referring to it, and personally, I agree:⁴

Hrungnir átti hjarta þat er gert var af hǫrðum steini ok tindótt með þrimr hornum, sem síðan er gert ristubragð þat er Hrungnishjarta heitir.


Hrungnir had a heart that was made of solid stone and sharply pointed with three points like the symbol for carving that is called Hrungnir’s heart has since been made.

The image is rendered either as three interlocking triangles, similar to the Borromean rings, or as a unicursal trefoil knot. There are few attested, but here’s one:

There is also this image from the Snoldelev Stone in Ramsø, Denmark, which is literally three interlocking horns, and might be another variant, or the specific sign referred to in the passage above:

There are various lines of thinking on the symbol’s use, mainly in association with Oðinn, and possibly relating to his ability to bind and unbind minds. If the hrungnishjarta name is correct, however, there is also a connection to Þórr, as the slayer of this jǫtunn: Hrungnir, had entered Valhalla (Valhǫll), gotten drunk and was wrecking the place, so they called Þórr. Þórr threw his hammer, and Hrungnir threw his weapon, a massive whetstone. Mjǫllnir shattered the whetstone and slew the giant, with shards raining down on Midgard (Miðgarðr) to become flint, and one jagged chunk lodged forever in Þórr’s head.

The Marvel folks seem to have opted for what is perhaps a more elegant version, known as the triquetra, using the symbol on their Thor’s hammer, but which is not found in Viking art.

The other symbol the Vikings clearly used is, unfortunately, one that can never be taken back: the swastika. It appears on several bracteates, including one that also includes the alu formula, so showing it bears a charm. The swastika is also associated with Þórr, and may simply have been another depiction of mjǫllnir.

Through all three parts in this series, we have seen Norse esoterica is a minefield of misinformation and appropriation by Neo-Pagans and Nazis. Even beyond this, much of the material has been mishandled and misrepresented.

I’m often down with the “rule of cool”, but it’s important to at least understand if you’re taking liberties with historicity, and definitely if you’ve been duped by reappropriations. It’s also important to understand the context of how these things were used, and to take care in how you represent them—even simply doubling sól, the runic equivalent of ⟨s⟩, might make someone think you’re into Gene Simmons.


Read previous articles in the Viking Esoterica series

Part 1: Runes

Part 2: Bindrunes


Notes

  1. “Icelandic magical staves”, Wikipedia, retrieved October 2016. They’ve fixed the article since.
  2. Fáfnismál (Fáfnir’s sayings) 17–18, Konungsbók (King’s Book, also known as the Codex Regia) GKS 2365 4º, ca. late 13th century. Note this is a normalized version of the manuscript’s Old Icelandic, written in Latin script. The original renders the term as Ęgis hialm. I’ve used the English translation from Carolyne Larrington, The Poetic Edda, 1996, apart from the term ǿgishjalmr.
  3. Text 60.10, Nippur, ca. 2112–2004 BCE, referenced in Graham Cunningham, Deliver Me from Evil: Mesopotamian Incantations, 25001500 BC, 1997.
  4. Snorri Sturluson, Skáldskaparmál (The Language of Poetry), f. 21r, p. 39, The Uppsala Edda (better known as the Codex Upsaliensis) DG 11 4º, ca. first quarter of the 14th century, Anthony Faulkes, trans., 2012.