/lit/ - Literature

His collection feels redundant, especially since he lists the sources he used at the end of the book. Why not just re-publish those instead?

>>19737037
>Book written by a Westerner after 1945
Into the trash it goes

>>19737037
YAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSS

>>19737076
Pathetic.

I need more context to make a judgement about this. I don't care much for Neil Gaiman though. At first glance, it seems as if he provides a highly unrelated answer to the question. Surely if there are two versions of the edda, one which provides more detail of an adventure and one which provides less but offers a different angle, you could incorporate details from both eddas to suit your narrative? Is he implying that he didn't even read the poetic edda because there was rape in it? Or that he was afraid using details from it would somehow 'legitimize' it, or what?
I dunno. Seems to me like kind of a moralistic cop-out for not doing his due diligence to a character this bitch's professor liked, if you ask me.

>>19737958
You think this is cute?

>>19737037
Neil Gaiman is a hack. He's one of the worst things to happen to literature. He's the Joss Whedon of paper.

>>19737037
People actually use tumblr in 2022?

>>19737037
>authentic
who cares? at the end of the day it's up to individual author to decide what kind of story they want to tell. the price is that a lot of those authors will be making bad choices, but the alternative is mindlessly replicating traditions, just so you can say that you're not to blame for the result. it's the closest thing to moral cowardice that exists in the realm of artistic production.

>>19737984
He definitely read it. There's no "rape" in the story, either. There's coercion. Skirnir threatens Gerdur to go and meet Freyr so they can get married, basically.
>>19740563
I agree that what gets put in their book must be up to the author. I'm certainly not trying to police what authors pick and choose to use for their own original work.
Accountability for accurate portrayal of myth and religion goes out the window when you hit the fiction barrier(Golems, for example, and how angry Jewish people get about them on the internet, or Wendigos), but mythology is akin to historical religion, not fantasy.
The question was to provoke conversation about whether or not authors have a responsibility when presenting adaptations of work that was not originally theirs, to remain true to the manuscript.
I think that to do otherwise is to strain and distill mythology into fantasy, albeit entertaining, because the stories are familiar, creating a phenomenon similar to fanfiction.
>>19738296
Yeah, unfortunately it's one of the few places left where clout-chasing gets you punished by the userbase, so in that it's become more like 4chan than, say, Twitter, which is the real mind-killer in current year +7

>>19740742
why treat religious traditions you do not personally believe to be reflective of a higher truth with any more reverence than artistic traditions? they claim that there's something sacred about them and diverging from dogma is bad, but you don't believe in Zeus or Thor, so I assume that argument doesn't apply to you.
>nooo, you're not allowed to mischaracterise my imaginary friend

>>19737958
How is Satantango so good, even through translation?

>>19740742
One of the unique qualities of myth is that there have always been different versions and different traditions of the stories. This has always been the case as long as there has been myth. Was Helen in Troy or was Helen in Egypt? Did Herakles murder his wife and children before or after his 12 labors? And so on. I don't really see a problem with authors retelling myths the way they see is best.

>>19737037
>Should it matter to modern readers that the version of authentic Norse mythology they are being presented is a fantasy determined piecemeal from two different sources by a contemporary author?
Same as it ever was. The values of the day always have and will affect how we interpret the culture of the past.

>>19740742
This >>19741072

>>but mythology is akin to historical religion, not fantasy

No it is not, and that is the moving basis here, or at least its circular definition that is OP's mistake.

Gaiman retells differently. That is his art. There are many who do this.
They are not responsible for "religion" any more than they are responsible for "myth."
An Academic is responsible for historical stories.
You move the basis to where it never was for the author, then circularly define it into existence.

An author is responsible for verisimiiltude. A "rapey" protagonist doesn't fit; therefore the version of the myth that might have a protagonist be acting out of love, and who would never extort marriage, would be the version he would choose.

I suspect this is just more owning the libs that has become the fashion here of late.
... It's really quite tiresome.... The conservatives I know were never such dainty little flowers who go looking for offense, probably because they were too busy being men ...

.... men that didn't rape.

>>19740742
How do you know he definitely read it? Did he use details from both versions? If so, then doesn't that contradict the claim that he reduces Skirnir's story in length due to not wanting to engage with a 'rapey' version of events? Surely he could avoid the 'rape' and include the 'adventure' if the rape was what made him opt for a reduced length telling.
Once again, we run into the problem of that Gaiman's response is completely incoherent to the question posed. They asked why his telling of Skirnir's story was so short, not whether he preferred the poetic or the prosaic version. Which version he preferred would only possibly be relevant if he actively avoided using details from the longer version due to the coercion present, which again begs the question- Why? Is he afraid that it would somehow 'legitimize' the coercion even if he didn't incorporate it into his version of events? Once more, it just reads like a cop out.

>>19737037
He's writing a retelling, and people have been softening those for ages, it's not a new woke thing. As a child one of my favorites was D'Aulaires Book of Greek Myths which does some pretty heavy editorialising especially with rape because the target audience was children. Gaiman isn't doing a translation for serious scholars, he's doing a retelling for young adults. If you develop serious interest in these topics you should be going to the original text in translation. Now people who deliberately politicize translations are scum.

>>19741145
>>19741220
>>19741436
You're all smarter than I am, so I'm not going to try and fit my foot in my mouth. I just saw the post while droning on social media and it felt disingenuous.
>>19741145
My circular remark is because his book, entitled "Norse Mythology," according to what he's just posted, draws from the Elder Edda and the Younger Edda indiscriminately based on the author's preference.
That isn't Norse mythology, that's Norse Fantasy. I'm not trying to own the libs, if you can take my word for it. I'm discussing, as you put it, verisimilitude.

>>19741436
This… do people complain when Greek myth books for children edit out all the pederasty…

>>19741145
You're missing the point, though. He chose to answer a question about a reduction in length and detail with an answer that is wholly unrelated to length and detail. If he is doing a modern adaptation, in the name of verisimilitude he should incorporate the adventures and details from both prosaic and poetic eddas. His choosing not to write a more complete telling because one of his sources has a "rapey" scene is a complete non sequitur of an answer.
I think this is less a case of "owning the libs" and ever-more tired case of "libs excuse bad/lazy/neglectful writing with politics"

"I didn't write a more complete telling of this Adventure because rape happened in one of the versions" Come on, now.

>>19737037
don't care I read the source material and I sure as fuck don't read modern hacks

>>19737984
>Or that he was afraid using details from it would somehow 'legitimize' it, or what?
Yeah
>>19740742
>There's no "rape" in the story, either. There's coercion.
Exactly, he forced her to consent to rape

>>19742437
But that makes no sense. Why can't he incorporate the details of the poetic edda and just skip the rape? What legitimacy does he really believe he grants to a song that's centuries old by merely referencing its contents? What does he save by ignoring a more detailed source in entirety due to one disagreeable aspect ethically?

>>19742482
He gets to win an argument vs a college professor via proxy while virtue signalling

>>19737037
Wokeness is replacing Christianity.
First the Norse told the story.
Then the Christian's christianized the story.
And now the woke are wokifying the story.

>>19737037
Was listening to Agatha Christie Murder of Roger Ackyroyd last night. There was a part that seemed to be missing something. Was confused and looked up the book. Apparently they deleted a paragraph on the jews and their lies

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrape… a function of civilisation since the dawn of time.

>>19737037
He made the wrong call, we all know Snorre was embellishing everything he could get away with and played down everything he didn't like anyways.
But who the fuck cares, if he want to retell the old norse tales he might as well pull from any and all sources to find the version he likes best as there are usually multiple version of every tale and every one of them is different.

>>19737037
>semite uses his slave morality to corrupt the works of noble aryans
A tale as old as time

>>19737076
i kneel

I don't support rape, and nor do I think any sane person with a shred of human decency would support rape either.
However having said that, rape is something that has existed since the dawn of time and will continue to do so; and to leave it or any other possibly controversial topic out just because of "muh morality" only speaks of self cencorship and dare I say, cowardice in the part of the author. Obviously context matters, but my point here is the narrowing of the Overton window. You see this shit in TV, movies, comics and videogames and I'm quite sure in literature as well thanks to woke crap etc.

I don't know about this case with Gaiman specific, but considering how he cucked down regarding Death's casting in the upcoming Sandman adaptation, I wouldn't count on Gaiman to put his money where his mouth is.

Separate the person from the artist etc. etc. You know the drill.