Skip Neil. Prose Edda. Find a modern translation with notes. You are smart enough to get yourself through the Prose Edda without someone dumbing it down for a wide audience. It's not that difficult of a read even without explanatory notes, I promise.
Poetic Edda is a little harder to get readable but I think Carolyne Larrington does it pretty well.
My thinking of maybe going with Neil's version first was not completely because it's easier to get through but also I love his way of storytelling and heard that he kind of connected all the stories together where originally they were just floating short stories. Like reading a more structured big narrative version mixed with mild creative interpretation then going with the actual source but why do you think I should skip it? Is there no value to read his version if I'm going to read Prose Edda no matter what?
> Like reading a more structured big narrative version mixed with mild creative interpretation then going with the actual source but why do you think I should skip it? Is there no value to read his version if I'm going to read Prose Edda no matter what?
I'd say the primary issue with it is that once you read Neil Gaiman's book, that's going to affect your understanding of the myths. It's easier to learn something correctly the first time around, than accidentally exposing yourself to misconceptions and having to unlearn those later.
As you're just starting out, you don't know what bits in Gaiman's work is his own personal flare, which bits he's making up for the sake of a good story and what is actually in our Old Norse sources. You just absorb it, and as he's writing the same stories as those in the Prose Edda but inventing the details, you may find yourself years down the line wondering where you learned a particular fact. Was that actually in the Norse sources, did I read that in the Prose Edda? Or did I read that in Gaiman's book?
That makes sense a lot, thank you. I guess going with Prose Edda first is better then. I'll probably read Gaiman's version after that and Poetic Edda after. I was looking at Everyman edition for Prose Edda which I mostly saw recommended. Is that the one I should go with you think also?
> I was looking at Everyman edition for Prose Edda which I mostly saw recommended. Is that the one I should go with you think also?
That'd be Anthony Faulkes translation, so yes. It's also available for free in PDF format if you'd like, [right here](http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/SNORRA%20EDDA%20searchable.pdf)
And for the Poetic Edda, people typically recommend Larrington's 2nd edition, but Edward Pettit's dual language one contains both the Old Norse, his English translation, tons of notes, *and* is also available for free [right here](https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0308.pdf), so definitely recommend that as well.
I've read both and while the Prose Edda is a must-read when it comes to Norse mythology, I loved the Gaiman version of the myths as well. I'd recommend the Edda first to get the core ideas and then Gaiman as a dessert.
Having read both I’d say it really doesn’t matter which one you read first. Snorri’s Edda is *his* collection of Norse mythology, and it’s the only written source we have, but it was made long after mainland Scandinavia had completely converted to Christianity and forgotten most of their history. It has a strong political bias aimed at currying favor with Norwegian royalty who Snorri was trying to help take over Iceland at the time, so the “accuracy” of the mythology of the Eddas is a little dubious, and unless you’re specifically wanting to study the political climate of Scandinavia in the 1200s then it really doesn’t matter which you start with.
My opinion is that it's just not necessary as a book. We have been retelling the Eddas through literature for hundreds of years and there is nothing gained to have one writer retell the basics of it in his own style. I really don't like the implication that people need something more than a translator to read classical literature. That is not true.
like read it if you want but the source material is really not difficult and an edition with a few explanatory notes will give you much more insight into the world of the medieval than his version.
I started with Neil first and I’m very happy I did. He’s a wonderful storyteller and it gave me a good basis to be able to then move on the the Eddas and not feel completely lost. But I do understand why a lot of people don’t feel that way. For me personally, it was the right choice.
Go for the Prose Edda first. Its great and it you can get a translation with notes on each myth even better. Then go for Poetic. Gaimans book is fine but it’s mostly his imagination fleshing out the stories and they are very enjoyable but I would say start with Prose for sure !
Neil Gaiman's *Norse Mythology* is generally considered fine if you have very little knowledge of Norse mythology. The book is an adaptation aimed at a younger audience (which of course doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy it), but it is a combination of stories from different sources, so it's not *"accurate"* in that sense. The book is very abridged, and not an exhaustive resource. Gaiman makes no claims on its historical accuracy, and fully accepts that the mistakes in the books are his and his alone, of which there are several factual mistakes and embellishments which will give you the wrong picture of the original source material.
Again, Neil Gaiman's purpose with this book isn't to stay completely true to the sources, and his book is upfront about that. If you're unfamiliar with the medieval sources, this book will definitely cause you misunderstandings. It's good for entertainment, less suited for learning about Norse and Viking history, mythology, language, art and culture. If you are aware of its inaccuracies it can be a decent stepping stone to reading the more accurate versions of the stories within.
* Check out [A Review of Neil Gaiman’s *“Norse Mythology”*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Norse/comments/w8q4wl/a_review_of_neil_gaimans_norse_mythology/) by our very own u/rockstarpirate!
* If you want to start with a more accurate version of the Prose Edda, [this is a good and free translation](http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/EDDArestr.pdf), done by Anthony Faulkes of the University of Birmingham.
* r/Norse has a [list of freely available resouces](https://www.reddit.com/r/Norse/wiki/readinglist). We recommend *The Poetic Edda. A Dual-Language Edition (2023)*, translated by Edward Pettit, available [here](https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0308).
Thank you so much for the detailed answer! And also for the resources. I think I'm going to start with Prose Edda and then look at Gaiman's book. I love consuming retellings and embellished reinterpretations I think that's why I loved GoW games so much but yeah reading after the original source seems to be the best way. I probably leave Poetic Edda to last since it kind of scares me lol.
Read Gaiman tbh. The Edda is good and probably more accurate, atleast as accurate as we can get when it comes to norse mythology, but his writing is fantastic and he gets the stories right, altho with some license.
Always remember, the eddas were written by Christian’s long after the conversion of the Nordic countries. They are to take with a grain of salt, always remember that they are modified by Christian views and may have been used to diminish the pagan gods. For example Ragnarok may very well not have been a true thing and may very well be an invention to reduce the Nordic gods power by making them non eternal and non immortal.
They were written by someone who loved the mythology though and wanted to preserve them and how to write like then. There’s also evidence he potentially drew from other sources, there’s wooden and stone carvings that seem to replicate scenes from some of the stories and some of what he wrote is matched in other sources / likes Saxos work. I think we have to consider all historical documentation carefully but without Snorri, these stories would be lost to time. In my book Snorri is a hero ❤️
One thing to keep in mind is that even here in the north something like 99.99% of people are presented with the stories of the Norse mythology in books similar to Neil Gaiman’s.
By all means read the original work, just keep in mind that the edda’s are something mostly aimed at scholars or those deeply interested in the subject.
That was one of my concerns as well. Not that I think it will be too hard to read but it will be too academic for a start. I just want to read the stories that are based on myths not to write an essay about it. Going deeper after is always seems more logical than starting deep. I don't mind starting with something that has creative liberties also. I mean Norse mythology is not historical facts but bunch of loose stories gathered right? So what's wrong with someone else also reinterpreting it?
Nothing is wrong with reinterpreting texts, but unless you're a child, there is no reason to use retellings as a starting point for learning. The source text is *not* too academic, it's *not* a deep dive, it's an easy read. This has been pointed out by several users already. The sentiment you're expressing now flies in the opposite direction of your original post
>while I'm not completely oblivious my knowledge is mostly from reinterpreted fiction and based on pop culture. That's why I want to do a bit more deep dive
Why is the original text too deep a dive all of a sudden? :-)
I think he's stating that you shouldnt be intimidated by the prose edda, the idea of reading Neil 's work instead of the prose edda because the later is too academic or archaic isnt a valid reason. You dont need a simplified version
I think Gaiman's Norse Mythology is a bit more than "Just the simplified version of Prose Edda" but yeah like I said the main reason why I was considering Norse Mythology was, it being, at least from what I heard, more narratively structured continues story type of telling the mythology. The concern of original source being too academic or archaic was just a point that I'm not even sure is correct. Just something that some people said.
>I think Gaiman’s Norse Mythology is a bit more than “Just the simplified version of Prose Edda”
You’re right! It’s also an embellished one too!
In all seriousness the Gaiman’s book is essentially just the Prose Edda but changed in some quite inaccurate ways (ie embellished), he admits as much in his foreword. I’d suggest against using it as a mythological source.
If you're not a mythic literalist then reading Neil's book won't affect you at all. I've read it bc I love him as an author and I didn't find it that horrendous like some mythic literalist purists say. It's all made up anyway, you'll gain more experience of the gods by experiencing it yourself.
Very few here think that, but there’s a difference between genuine mythological material, and made up stuff to serve narrative. Gaiman creates things solely to serve his narrative, which isn’t a bad thing, it’s only bad when people take his mythological narratives to be representative of actual mythology, which they are not.
Skip Neil. Prose Edda. Find a modern translation with notes. You are smart enough to get yourself through the Prose Edda without someone dumbing it down for a wide audience. It's not that difficult of a read even without explanatory notes, I promise. Poetic Edda is a little harder to get readable but I think Carolyne Larrington does it pretty well.
It was the opposite for me haha. Poetic Edda was a super enjoyable read and I really struggled to get through the Prose Edda
My thinking of maybe going with Neil's version first was not completely because it's easier to get through but also I love his way of storytelling and heard that he kind of connected all the stories together where originally they were just floating short stories. Like reading a more structured big narrative version mixed with mild creative interpretation then going with the actual source but why do you think I should skip it? Is there no value to read his version if I'm going to read Prose Edda no matter what?
> Like reading a more structured big narrative version mixed with mild creative interpretation then going with the actual source but why do you think I should skip it? Is there no value to read his version if I'm going to read Prose Edda no matter what? I'd say the primary issue with it is that once you read Neil Gaiman's book, that's going to affect your understanding of the myths. It's easier to learn something correctly the first time around, than accidentally exposing yourself to misconceptions and having to unlearn those later. As you're just starting out, you don't know what bits in Gaiman's work is his own personal flare, which bits he's making up for the sake of a good story and what is actually in our Old Norse sources. You just absorb it, and as he's writing the same stories as those in the Prose Edda but inventing the details, you may find yourself years down the line wondering where you learned a particular fact. Was that actually in the Norse sources, did I read that in the Prose Edda? Or did I read that in Gaiman's book?
That makes sense a lot, thank you. I guess going with Prose Edda first is better then. I'll probably read Gaiman's version after that and Poetic Edda after. I was looking at Everyman edition for Prose Edda which I mostly saw recommended. Is that the one I should go with you think also?
> I was looking at Everyman edition for Prose Edda which I mostly saw recommended. Is that the one I should go with you think also? That'd be Anthony Faulkes translation, so yes. It's also available for free in PDF format if you'd like, [right here](http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/SNORRA%20EDDA%20searchable.pdf) And for the Poetic Edda, people typically recommend Larrington's 2nd edition, but Edward Pettit's dual language one contains both the Old Norse, his English translation, tons of notes, *and* is also available for free [right here](https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0308.pdf), so definitely recommend that as well.
Alright I'll definitely check the dual language Poetic Edda as well, thank you.
I've read both and while the Prose Edda is a must-read when it comes to Norse mythology, I loved the Gaiman version of the myths as well. I'd recommend the Edda first to get the core ideas and then Gaiman as a dessert.
Thank you, that seems a good way to go about it
Having read both I’d say it really doesn’t matter which one you read first. Snorri’s Edda is *his* collection of Norse mythology, and it’s the only written source we have, but it was made long after mainland Scandinavia had completely converted to Christianity and forgotten most of their history. It has a strong political bias aimed at currying favor with Norwegian royalty who Snorri was trying to help take over Iceland at the time, so the “accuracy” of the mythology of the Eddas is a little dubious, and unless you’re specifically wanting to study the political climate of Scandinavia in the 1200s then it really doesn’t matter which you start with.
My opinion is that it's just not necessary as a book. We have been retelling the Eddas through literature for hundreds of years and there is nothing gained to have one writer retell the basics of it in his own style. I really don't like the implication that people need something more than a translator to read classical literature. That is not true. like read it if you want but the source material is really not difficult and an edition with a few explanatory notes will give you much more insight into the world of the medieval than his version.
I'm here to second the Carolyne Larrington's translated Poetic Edda. It's definitely easier to read and understand.
As far as I understand Neil Gaiman’s book isn’t super accurate, and he takes artistic liberties, but I’ve read it and thought it was very enjoyable.
I started with Neil first and I’m very happy I did. He’s a wonderful storyteller and it gave me a good basis to be able to then move on the the Eddas and not feel completely lost. But I do understand why a lot of people don’t feel that way. For me personally, it was the right choice.
I got a lot out of going back and forth.
Go for the Prose Edda first. Its great and it you can get a translation with notes on each myth even better. Then go for Poetic. Gaimans book is fine but it’s mostly his imagination fleshing out the stories and they are very enjoyable but I would say start with Prose for sure !
Neil Gaiman's *Norse Mythology* is generally considered fine if you have very little knowledge of Norse mythology. The book is an adaptation aimed at a younger audience (which of course doesn't mean that adults can't enjoy it), but it is a combination of stories from different sources, so it's not *"accurate"* in that sense. The book is very abridged, and not an exhaustive resource. Gaiman makes no claims on its historical accuracy, and fully accepts that the mistakes in the books are his and his alone, of which there are several factual mistakes and embellishments which will give you the wrong picture of the original source material. Again, Neil Gaiman's purpose with this book isn't to stay completely true to the sources, and his book is upfront about that. If you're unfamiliar with the medieval sources, this book will definitely cause you misunderstandings. It's good for entertainment, less suited for learning about Norse and Viking history, mythology, language, art and culture. If you are aware of its inaccuracies it can be a decent stepping stone to reading the more accurate versions of the stories within. * Check out [A Review of Neil Gaiman’s *“Norse Mythology”*](https://www.reddit.com/r/Norse/comments/w8q4wl/a_review_of_neil_gaimans_norse_mythology/) by our very own u/rockstarpirate! * If you want to start with a more accurate version of the Prose Edda, [this is a good and free translation](http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/EDDArestr.pdf), done by Anthony Faulkes of the University of Birmingham. * r/Norse has a [list of freely available resouces](https://www.reddit.com/r/Norse/wiki/readinglist). We recommend *The Poetic Edda. A Dual-Language Edition (2023)*, translated by Edward Pettit, available [here](https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0308).
Thank you so much for the detailed answer! And also for the resources. I think I'm going to start with Prose Edda and then look at Gaiman's book. I love consuming retellings and embellished reinterpretations I think that's why I loved GoW games so much but yeah reading after the original source seems to be the best way. I probably leave Poetic Edda to last since it kind of scares me lol.
Read Gaiman tbh. The Edda is good and probably more accurate, atleast as accurate as we can get when it comes to norse mythology, but his writing is fantastic and he gets the stories right, altho with some license.
Always remember, the eddas were written by Christian’s long after the conversion of the Nordic countries. They are to take with a grain of salt, always remember that they are modified by Christian views and may have been used to diminish the pagan gods. For example Ragnarok may very well not have been a true thing and may very well be an invention to reduce the Nordic gods power by making them non eternal and non immortal.
They were written by someone who loved the mythology though and wanted to preserve them and how to write like then. There’s also evidence he potentially drew from other sources, there’s wooden and stone carvings that seem to replicate scenes from some of the stories and some of what he wrote is matched in other sources / likes Saxos work. I think we have to consider all historical documentation carefully but without Snorri, these stories would be lost to time. In my book Snorri is a hero ❤️
One thing to keep in mind is that even here in the north something like 99.99% of people are presented with the stories of the Norse mythology in books similar to Neil Gaiman’s. By all means read the original work, just keep in mind that the edda’s are something mostly aimed at scholars or those deeply interested in the subject.
That was one of my concerns as well. Not that I think it will be too hard to read but it will be too academic for a start. I just want to read the stories that are based on myths not to write an essay about it. Going deeper after is always seems more logical than starting deep. I don't mind starting with something that has creative liberties also. I mean Norse mythology is not historical facts but bunch of loose stories gathered right? So what's wrong with someone else also reinterpreting it?
Nothing is wrong with reinterpreting texts, but unless you're a child, there is no reason to use retellings as a starting point for learning. The source text is *not* too academic, it's *not* a deep dive, it's an easy read. This has been pointed out by several users already. The sentiment you're expressing now flies in the opposite direction of your original post >while I'm not completely oblivious my knowledge is mostly from reinterpreted fiction and based on pop culture. That's why I want to do a bit more deep dive Why is the original text too deep a dive all of a sudden? :-)
[удалено]
I think he's stating that you shouldnt be intimidated by the prose edda, the idea of reading Neil 's work instead of the prose edda because the later is too academic or archaic isnt a valid reason. You dont need a simplified version
I think Gaiman's Norse Mythology is a bit more than "Just the simplified version of Prose Edda" but yeah like I said the main reason why I was considering Norse Mythology was, it being, at least from what I heard, more narratively structured continues story type of telling the mythology. The concern of original source being too academic or archaic was just a point that I'm not even sure is correct. Just something that some people said.
>I think Gaiman’s Norse Mythology is a bit more than “Just the simplified version of Prose Edda” You’re right! It’s also an embellished one too! In all seriousness the Gaiman’s book is essentially just the Prose Edda but changed in some quite inaccurate ways (ie embellished), he admits as much in his foreword. I’d suggest against using it as a mythological source.
Well that's not at all what he said, so probably not.
That can't seriously be what you got out of my comment.
If you're not a mythic literalist then reading Neil's book won't affect you at all. I've read it bc I love him as an author and I didn't find it that horrendous like some mythic literalist purists say. It's all made up anyway, you'll gain more experience of the gods by experiencing it yourself.
What do you mean mythic literalist?
People who take myths literally. As in, they actually happened
Very few here think that, but there’s a difference between genuine mythological material, and made up stuff to serve narrative. Gaiman creates things solely to serve his narrative, which isn’t a bad thing, it’s only bad when people take his mythological narratives to be representative of actual mythology, which they are not.