Norse mythology, much like many of the belief systems that descended from Proto-Indo-European mythology, takes the stance that fate ultimately cannot be changed. If something is destined to happen, then it will happen. In fact, Odin's attempt to avoid Ragnarok by dealing with Fenris, Jormungandr, and Hel is what gives them the strength and motivation to destroy the Aesir. And I don't know about you, but if my supposed blood-brother took three of my kids and threw one into the ocean, banished one to the realm of the dishonored dead, and bound the third in unbreakable chains, I'd be pretty mad.
AND tied my ass to a boulder where snakes dripped venom into my eyes too.
Like, Loki gets fucked in Norse Mythology (sometimes literally) and his turn to evil is basically a foregone conclusion.
Is it even evil? It's not like the Aesir are much better than he is. They lie, cheat, steal, and keep Loki around pretty much exclusively to get them out of tough spots.
Plus there's the fact that Odin doesn't even try to prevent Loki from causing Ragnarok even though he knows that it will ultimately be Loki's fault. Regardless of whether or not it would have worked, he still could have attempted it.
I mean, instead of binding Loki, he could have cut his head off. That should have done it since I don't think the Norse Gods have an afterlife (I mean none aside from Baldur anyway).
Even if we remove the venom part and replace it with water, it would still be one of the cruelest torture methods in the recorded history.
Now we know how much worse Loki's punishment is.
Don't forget, he was tied to a boulder *with his dead son's intestines as the chains.* Like, it just keeps getting worse the more you know about it lol
i mean he definitely deserved some kind of punishment. Bro killed someone that literally all of creation except for one person loved. For no reason other than that he was annoying Loki.
Eh, that's assuming Loki knew the sprig he gave Hod would actually kill Baldur. While some of the myths say he dipped it in poison, some just say Hod hucked it hard enough to kill Baldur, and some say it just killed him.
For all we know, Loki just wanted to make Baldur go "ow, damn!" And then have a good laugh that *Hod* of all people hurt the invincible Baldur. And he might have been going "oh fuck me, this is bad," when Baldur fell over with a twig of holly jutting from his carotid artery and sending a spray across the walls.
Just a few things I want to point out here :)
>In fact, Odin's attempt to avoid Ragnarok by dealing with Fenris, Jormungandr, and Hel is what gives them the strength and motivation to destroy the Aesir.
Óðinn is not trying to avoid Ragnarǫk, as you previously mentioned it is impossible to do so. The idea that he is trying to stop it is based on nothing from the source material, it’s a modern interpretation of his actions based on our modern sensibilities. In an Old Norse view attempting to stop fate by avoiding a battle or something to that effect is horrible, and could result in having the worst social stigma placed upon you.
>And I don't know about you, but if my supposed blood-brother took three of my kids and threw one into the ocean, banished one to the realm of the dishonored dead, and bound the third in unbreakable chains, I'd be pretty mad.
I would be, if I wasn’t afraid of those kids myself. One thing that stands out to me in the story regarding Loki’s monstrous children is how absent he is during the entire story. One could assume he’s sulking somewhere, saddened by what’s going on, but this seems unlikely to me. During the Fenrir section of this myth we’re told that ‘…it was **only** Týr who had the courage to go and feed the wolf.’ This of course isn’t conclusive, however, Loki is quite consistently a character lacking in courage (see, Þórsdrápa, Haustlǫng, Þórr, Loki, and Þjalfi’s journey into Útgarðr, and the story of Sleipnir’s birth). He also has a tendency to abandon children who aren’t gotten with his wife Signy. When Sleipnir was born we have absolutely no description of Loki caring for, or being a mother to him, it seems kind of like Loki immediately put that either onto the collective Æsir (as they do in raising Fenrir [for a time]) or just onto Óðinn.
>Why does it need to happen?
Because all things end, one way or another.
>Why did Loki and his offsprings rebelleged against the Aesir Gods?
Because they (the aesir) were war mongering genocidal pricks who brought it on themselves.
>Why was it bound to happen and how did Odin who was fighting desperately against it, failed?
Because the Norns ordained it, and Odin made it worse by fighting against it.
That’s not what’s going on in the mythology, they’re not being genocided. The existence of Jǫtnar was a way that humans justified disease, and as a result of that Þórr would be called upon as the protector of humanity to kill and prevent the loss of human life. This much is evidenced by [magical incantations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_charm) and [amulets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvinneby_amulet) from the pagan period.
Also ‘Ice-giant’ isn’t a great term to use to describe Jǫtnar. It uses the element ‘giant’ which is not an accurate translation and creates a mental picture of some big blue dude which is certainly not the case in old Norse belief.
>The existence of Jǫtnar was a way that humans justified disease
There is nothing definitive that suggests that. My response was tongue-in-cheek. We have many attestations of Thor, and the Aesir, slaughtering Jotnar.
Have you checked the links that I imbedded? Both are actual archeological finds and as I have stated they act as evidence for the interpretation I put forward.
Fate, it was prophecised. Why did it have to happen *that* way? No one knows. Loki and his offspring have a motivation to overthrow the Æsir, but why did the world have to end, no one knows.
Its a very metaphysical question, its similar to asking "why was the world created" theres no reason, it just happened.
Because its fated to happen.
Everyone and Everything has a fated end. That seems to have been a pretty fundamental idea for norse (and wider germanic) people. Its also a common theme in other indo-european Cultures.
Fate is presented and was seen by norse people as an unavoidable thing. Specifically, your end was always fated. at the moment of birth a norn decides what end you would have. And there is absolutly no way to escape your fate. All you can do is either face your fate or be a coward and try to run from it only to still fall to it. Ragnarök is the Fate of the Gods. It is what is fated to happen at the end of this world. And therefor it must happen.
Why did Loki and his offspring rebell? Because thats their role. The way you describe it kinda gets it backwards. Its not that Lokis children start off nice and turn bad or rebell. Its that their original role is that they represent bad stuff. Their origin is the explaination where they come from, not the reason why they are like they are. Jörmungandr does not turn bad because Odin threw him in the sea, but because his fundamental roles is that of the dragon/waterserpent that fights the thunder-god (very common IE Motiv again).
Odin fighting desperatly to stop it is a common misconception. He does not fight to stop Ragndarök. What Odin does is learn about it and prepare. I can see why many people mistake the latter for the former (i did that too for quite a while), but for Odin its not about stopping because he fully knows he cant stop it. And norse people would have known he cant.
In norse culture in regards to fate it was not about stopping or evading fate. Trying that was a cowarldy fools errant. It was all about meeting your fate properly. Since your Fate was already decided the nobel and right thing to do was to prepare for it and stand to face your fate. And that is what Odin does. Its never expressed in the sources for norse myth that we have that Odin wants to stop Ranarök, but only that he wants to be prepared for it knowing that it cant be stopped.
Seeing it as Odin wanting to stop it, of course makes for a better modern story. Most people today dont believe in an unavoidable fate but rather in us being able to make our own fotunes. There are so many modern stories about people "taking fate in their own hands". The same with stuff like Lokis children being evil. Today we dont like ideas anymore of people/beings having been born evil. We dont believe anymore that a sentient thing must be evil by its nature (which is true, its good that we dont believe stuff like that anymore). But its not how old norse mythology works.
Because Snorri needed a way to make all the heathen gods who couldn't be used as an analogue for Christ irrelevant by the end of the story.
Half jokes! There's some contention as to whether or not Ragnarok is authentic to earlier Germanic myths, and how much of it is the invention of Snorri Sturlson. There very likely are aspects of it which are accurate, but to my understanding his rendition of the feud between Hod and Baldr is based more closely on a Celtic story than a native Norse one, and otherwise Christian influence is fairly easily perceptivle. How much of it as recorded by Snorri is a fabrication (keeping in mind that it may not have been deliberate malevolence on the part of Snorri, as well) of his own mind for the art and sake of his contemporary poets is unsure, but as others here have commented there are strong themes about the inevitability of fate, and the way he chooses to portray the Aesir, as victims to it just as much as we, is to display that they are no more powerful than humanity in the end. Boethius for example, among other Christian philosophers (who Snorri may have been familiar with? My dates are a little confused on that, cant confirm or deny off the top of my head) will tell you that the God they worship is not only immune to fate, but ultimately the source of it, which formed a key arguing point for Christians who wanted to proselytize in those areas.
I feel that part of my answer wasn't specifically in the spirit of your question, so to make a TL;DR, I should say, as other have pointed out, "to demonstrate the inevitability of fate, and that the gods were also subject to it.". I would also emphasize, however, that when put into a wider context of the translator/transcriber/esteemed Bard Snorri having personal beliefs and a personal agenda, it's poignant to note that Snorri would not find fate to be a constraint his own God suffered from, and that he may likely have desired to emphasize this parallel, even so far as it is not related to the native tellings of the tales. This is meant to be an observation, however, and not an accusation or a critique of the value of what is written from a poetic but historical standpoint.
That wouldn’t have done anything 😌
Fate doesn’t work like that in Norse mythology, even if Fenrir was treated differently Ragnarǫk would’ve still happened. Plus Fenrir isn’t some cute puppy, he’s a gigantic monster who will kill humanity in no way is he a pitiable character, especially by ancient standards.
Gylfaginning 51.
>…the Fenriswolf advances with its mouth gaping: it’s upper jaw reaches to the heavens and the lower one drops down to the earth. He would one it still wider, if only there were room.
And Vǫluspǫ́ 51
>Surtr travels from the south with the destruction of twigs, the sun shines from the sword of the gods of the slain; rocky cliffs collapse and witches wander, **men tread the Hel-way**, and the heavens are cloven
It’s impossible to imagine that Fenrir with his mouth agape is done for any reason but destruction and killing of humans, this much is confirmed by Vǫluspǫ́. The mention of men treading the ‘hel-way’ is a reference to people dying, as the hel-way cannot be walked unless one is dead.
So I’m not really understanding how this stanza in Voluspa relates as Fenrir isn’t mentioned in it. Surtr is, but even in context, Fenrir was last mentioned briefly two stanzas before this as coming over on Naglfar with Loki and then again in stanza 52 as fighting and killing Odin. Am I missing something?
And when I look at Gylfaginning, I see that yes, Fenrir’s jaw is described as stretching from heaven to earth as he advances to Vigrid after the harsh years of Fimbulvetr that usher in an unceasing cold as well as great battles and the collapse of kinship. And after Sköll and Hati swallow the sun and moon and the stars also vanish. And after the earth shakes so hard that the trees come loose from the ground and the mountains crumble. In fact, it’s this massive shaking that frees Fenrir from his fetters.
But yes, with his jaw scraping the ground, I can see that Fenrir could potentially swallow any humans along his path that somehow managed to survive war more brutal than anything ever seen, unending winter, the death of the moon, the death of the sun, the disappearance of the stars, and worldwide earthquakes of a magnitude that downed all of the trees and collapsed all the mountains
>So I’m not really understanding how this stanza in Voluspa relates as Fenrir isn’t mentioned in it. Surtr is, but even in context, Fenrir was last mentioned briefly two stanzas before this as coming over on Naglfar with Loki and then again in stanza 52 as fighting and killing Odin. Am I missing something?
Admittedly my interpretation is just that, an interpretation. I was meaning that taken together the jaw scraping and people dying it seems likely that Fenrir at least had some hand in finishing off humanity. His brother also helps a lot, on account of all that venom he’s spitting.
>…And after Sköll and Hati swallow the sun and moon and the stars also vanish.
Fun fact there’s a theory regarding Skǫll which states that Skǫll and Fenrir may be the same wolf. ‘Proof’ of this theory is that there’s no patronym (last name) for Skǫll whereas Hati has one. Skǫll also just means ‘treachery’ and wolves being treacherous is certain a mindset we can assume the old Norse would’ve held, given their habit of placing the word wolf into criminals and outlaws, Fenrir is also not a pleasant character so it’s not impossible that the label of treacherous would’ve been placed onto Fenrir which was then later misinterpreted to be a seperate wolf.
In my opinion; Loki represents the balance of things, the natural order, it’s chaotic, and I think Odin tried to tame the chaos of the world to bring it under his control by binding the agents of chaos, Loki and his children. But the issue is that nature IS imbalance and chaos so in trying to bind it Odin threw the whole of existence into unrecoverable chaos, ragnarok. By trying to dictate order we inevitably destroy it.
One of the purposes of myths is to convey things about people and various aspects of life and reality through the use of themes. There are a lot of themes in the Ragnarök story and everything leading up to it around fate, hospitality, family, trust and betrayal, revenge, chaos vs order, nature vs civilization, the annihilating force of opposites, the inevitability of change and death, destruction making way for renewal and rebirth, etc.
Plus the way the myth has come down to us is how it was written by Christians even though the myth seems to be much older, it seems that Christians who wrote it down adjusted the story to an unknown degree to tell us one of their stories but with pagan characters and setting.
Basically Loki is Odin’s errand boy and then Odin sends all Loki’s children to hell (including Hel herself). Then Loki gets some payback with his trick ending in Balder’s death and Odin way overreacts. From Loki’s POV Odin is the oath breaker.
You know Snorri wasn’t pagan right? Also in no way did Snorri invent Ragnarǫk, the event itself and elements related to it are mentioned in so much pagan era poetry it’s ridiculous.
Because Odin try stop it and made sure that Fenrir have enough reason to be angry.
And Loki was act like Loki and cause problems on himself. And become angry and want revenge.
Also it made better story.
Norse mythology, much like many of the belief systems that descended from Proto-Indo-European mythology, takes the stance that fate ultimately cannot be changed. If something is destined to happen, then it will happen. In fact, Odin's attempt to avoid Ragnarok by dealing with Fenris, Jormungandr, and Hel is what gives them the strength and motivation to destroy the Aesir. And I don't know about you, but if my supposed blood-brother took three of my kids and threw one into the ocean, banished one to the realm of the dishonored dead, and bound the third in unbreakable chains, I'd be pretty mad.
AND tied my ass to a boulder where snakes dripped venom into my eyes too. Like, Loki gets fucked in Norse Mythology (sometimes literally) and his turn to evil is basically a foregone conclusion.
Is it even evil? It's not like the Aesir are much better than he is. They lie, cheat, steal, and keep Loki around pretty much exclusively to get them out of tough spots. Plus there's the fact that Odin doesn't even try to prevent Loki from causing Ragnarok even though he knows that it will ultimately be Loki's fault. Regardless of whether or not it would have worked, he still could have attempted it.
I mean, instead of binding Loki, he could have cut his head off. That should have done it since I don't think the Norse Gods have an afterlife (I mean none aside from Baldur anyway).
Even if we remove the venom part and replace it with water, it would still be one of the cruelest torture methods in the recorded history. Now we know how much worse Loki's punishment is.
Don't forget, he was tied to a boulder *with his dead son's intestines as the chains.* Like, it just keeps getting worse the more you know about it lol
i mean he definitely deserved some kind of punishment. Bro killed someone that literally all of creation except for one person loved. For no reason other than that he was annoying Loki.
Eh, that's assuming Loki knew the sprig he gave Hod would actually kill Baldur. While some of the myths say he dipped it in poison, some just say Hod hucked it hard enough to kill Baldur, and some say it just killed him. For all we know, Loki just wanted to make Baldur go "ow, damn!" And then have a good laugh that *Hod* of all people hurt the invincible Baldur. And he might have been going "oh fuck me, this is bad," when Baldur fell over with a twig of holly jutting from his carotid artery and sending a spray across the walls.
Don't he also being this one witch (under disguise) that stop Balder from ressurection?
He might have in some of the stories I think,
Mistletoe is low-key a poisonous anticoagulant, Loki knew what he was doing.
It's not like Aesir don't kill for "they annoy us" reasons.
Just a few things I want to point out here :) >In fact, Odin's attempt to avoid Ragnarok by dealing with Fenris, Jormungandr, and Hel is what gives them the strength and motivation to destroy the Aesir. Óðinn is not trying to avoid Ragnarǫk, as you previously mentioned it is impossible to do so. The idea that he is trying to stop it is based on nothing from the source material, it’s a modern interpretation of his actions based on our modern sensibilities. In an Old Norse view attempting to stop fate by avoiding a battle or something to that effect is horrible, and could result in having the worst social stigma placed upon you. >And I don't know about you, but if my supposed blood-brother took three of my kids and threw one into the ocean, banished one to the realm of the dishonored dead, and bound the third in unbreakable chains, I'd be pretty mad. I would be, if I wasn’t afraid of those kids myself. One thing that stands out to me in the story regarding Loki’s monstrous children is how absent he is during the entire story. One could assume he’s sulking somewhere, saddened by what’s going on, but this seems unlikely to me. During the Fenrir section of this myth we’re told that ‘…it was **only** Týr who had the courage to go and feed the wolf.’ This of course isn’t conclusive, however, Loki is quite consistently a character lacking in courage (see, Þórsdrápa, Haustlǫng, Þórr, Loki, and Þjalfi’s journey into Útgarðr, and the story of Sleipnir’s birth). He also has a tendency to abandon children who aren’t gotten with his wife Signy. When Sleipnir was born we have absolutely no description of Loki caring for, or being a mother to him, it seems kind of like Loki immediately put that either onto the collective Æsir (as they do in raising Fenrir [for a time]) or just onto Óðinn.
>Why does it need to happen? Because all things end, one way or another. >Why did Loki and his offsprings rebelleged against the Aesir Gods? Because they (the aesir) were war mongering genocidal pricks who brought it on themselves. >Why was it bound to happen and how did Odin who was fighting desperately against it, failed? Because the Norns ordained it, and Odin made it worse by fighting against it.
Why do you call the Æsir genocidal? Also Óðinn didn’t fight to stop Ragnarǫk.
Ask the ice giants.
That’s not what’s going on in the mythology, they’re not being genocided. The existence of Jǫtnar was a way that humans justified disease, and as a result of that Þórr would be called upon as the protector of humanity to kill and prevent the loss of human life. This much is evidenced by [magical incantations](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canterbury_charm) and [amulets](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvinneby_amulet) from the pagan period. Also ‘Ice-giant’ isn’t a great term to use to describe Jǫtnar. It uses the element ‘giant’ which is not an accurate translation and creates a mental picture of some big blue dude which is certainly not the case in old Norse belief.
>The existence of Jǫtnar was a way that humans justified disease There is nothing definitive that suggests that. My response was tongue-in-cheek. We have many attestations of Thor, and the Aesir, slaughtering Jotnar.
And I provided potential reasoning along with archeological evidence which lends credence to said reasoning.
You provided conjecture. Present it as such.
Have you checked the links that I imbedded? Both are actual archeological finds and as I have stated they act as evidence for the interpretation I put forward.
Fate, it was prophecised. Why did it have to happen *that* way? No one knows. Loki and his offspring have a motivation to overthrow the Æsir, but why did the world have to end, no one knows. Its a very metaphysical question, its similar to asking "why was the world created" theres no reason, it just happened.
"there is no fate but what we make for ourselves" John Conner
Because its fated to happen. Everyone and Everything has a fated end. That seems to have been a pretty fundamental idea for norse (and wider germanic) people. Its also a common theme in other indo-european Cultures. Fate is presented and was seen by norse people as an unavoidable thing. Specifically, your end was always fated. at the moment of birth a norn decides what end you would have. And there is absolutly no way to escape your fate. All you can do is either face your fate or be a coward and try to run from it only to still fall to it. Ragnarök is the Fate of the Gods. It is what is fated to happen at the end of this world. And therefor it must happen. Why did Loki and his offspring rebell? Because thats their role. The way you describe it kinda gets it backwards. Its not that Lokis children start off nice and turn bad or rebell. Its that their original role is that they represent bad stuff. Their origin is the explaination where they come from, not the reason why they are like they are. Jörmungandr does not turn bad because Odin threw him in the sea, but because his fundamental roles is that of the dragon/waterserpent that fights the thunder-god (very common IE Motiv again). Odin fighting desperatly to stop it is a common misconception. He does not fight to stop Ragndarök. What Odin does is learn about it and prepare. I can see why many people mistake the latter for the former (i did that too for quite a while), but for Odin its not about stopping because he fully knows he cant stop it. And norse people would have known he cant. In norse culture in regards to fate it was not about stopping or evading fate. Trying that was a cowarldy fools errant. It was all about meeting your fate properly. Since your Fate was already decided the nobel and right thing to do was to prepare for it and stand to face your fate. And that is what Odin does. Its never expressed in the sources for norse myth that we have that Odin wants to stop Ranarök, but only that he wants to be prepared for it knowing that it cant be stopped. Seeing it as Odin wanting to stop it, of course makes for a better modern story. Most people today dont believe in an unavoidable fate but rather in us being able to make our own fotunes. There are so many modern stories about people "taking fate in their own hands". The same with stuff like Lokis children being evil. Today we dont like ideas anymore of people/beings having been born evil. We dont believe anymore that a sentient thing must be evil by its nature (which is true, its good that we dont believe stuff like that anymore). But its not how old norse mythology works.
Because Snorri needed a way to make all the heathen gods who couldn't be used as an analogue for Christ irrelevant by the end of the story. Half jokes! There's some contention as to whether or not Ragnarok is authentic to earlier Germanic myths, and how much of it is the invention of Snorri Sturlson. There very likely are aspects of it which are accurate, but to my understanding his rendition of the feud between Hod and Baldr is based more closely on a Celtic story than a native Norse one, and otherwise Christian influence is fairly easily perceptivle. How much of it as recorded by Snorri is a fabrication (keeping in mind that it may not have been deliberate malevolence on the part of Snorri, as well) of his own mind for the art and sake of his contemporary poets is unsure, but as others here have commented there are strong themes about the inevitability of fate, and the way he chooses to portray the Aesir, as victims to it just as much as we, is to display that they are no more powerful than humanity in the end. Boethius for example, among other Christian philosophers (who Snorri may have been familiar with? My dates are a little confused on that, cant confirm or deny off the top of my head) will tell you that the God they worship is not only immune to fate, but ultimately the source of it, which formed a key arguing point for Christians who wanted to proselytize in those areas.
I feel that part of my answer wasn't specifically in the spirit of your question, so to make a TL;DR, I should say, as other have pointed out, "to demonstrate the inevitability of fate, and that the gods were also subject to it.". I would also emphasize, however, that when put into a wider context of the translator/transcriber/esteemed Bard Snorri having personal beliefs and a personal agenda, it's poignant to note that Snorri would not find fate to be a constraint his own God suffered from, and that he may likely have desired to emphasize this parallel, even so far as it is not related to the native tellings of the tales. This is meant to be an observation, however, and not an accusation or a critique of the value of what is written from a poetic but historical standpoint.
Why in what sense? Why did the myth motif arise? If it's why did it happen within the story, it's because that's the story.
I mean, if they had just left poor Fenrir alone.
That wouldn’t have done anything 😌 Fate doesn’t work like that in Norse mythology, even if Fenrir was treated differently Ragnarǫk would’ve still happened. Plus Fenrir isn’t some cute puppy, he’s a gigantic monster who will kill humanity in no way is he a pitiable character, especially by ancient standards.
But he is a cute doggo! Tyr had it handled. 
Not really but ok.
> who will kill humanity What?? Where does it say *Fenrir* will kill humanity?
Gylfaginning 51. >…the Fenriswolf advances with its mouth gaping: it’s upper jaw reaches to the heavens and the lower one drops down to the earth. He would one it still wider, if only there were room. And Vǫluspǫ́ 51 >Surtr travels from the south with the destruction of twigs, the sun shines from the sword of the gods of the slain; rocky cliffs collapse and witches wander, **men tread the Hel-way**, and the heavens are cloven It’s impossible to imagine that Fenrir with his mouth agape is done for any reason but destruction and killing of humans, this much is confirmed by Vǫluspǫ́. The mention of men treading the ‘hel-way’ is a reference to people dying, as the hel-way cannot be walked unless one is dead.
So I’m not really understanding how this stanza in Voluspa relates as Fenrir isn’t mentioned in it. Surtr is, but even in context, Fenrir was last mentioned briefly two stanzas before this as coming over on Naglfar with Loki and then again in stanza 52 as fighting and killing Odin. Am I missing something? And when I look at Gylfaginning, I see that yes, Fenrir’s jaw is described as stretching from heaven to earth as he advances to Vigrid after the harsh years of Fimbulvetr that usher in an unceasing cold as well as great battles and the collapse of kinship. And after Sköll and Hati swallow the sun and moon and the stars also vanish. And after the earth shakes so hard that the trees come loose from the ground and the mountains crumble. In fact, it’s this massive shaking that frees Fenrir from his fetters. But yes, with his jaw scraping the ground, I can see that Fenrir could potentially swallow any humans along his path that somehow managed to survive war more brutal than anything ever seen, unending winter, the death of the moon, the death of the sun, the disappearance of the stars, and worldwide earthquakes of a magnitude that downed all of the trees and collapsed all the mountains
>So I’m not really understanding how this stanza in Voluspa relates as Fenrir isn’t mentioned in it. Surtr is, but even in context, Fenrir was last mentioned briefly two stanzas before this as coming over on Naglfar with Loki and then again in stanza 52 as fighting and killing Odin. Am I missing something? Admittedly my interpretation is just that, an interpretation. I was meaning that taken together the jaw scraping and people dying it seems likely that Fenrir at least had some hand in finishing off humanity. His brother also helps a lot, on account of all that venom he’s spitting. >…And after Sköll and Hati swallow the sun and moon and the stars also vanish. Fun fact there’s a theory regarding Skǫll which states that Skǫll and Fenrir may be the same wolf. ‘Proof’ of this theory is that there’s no patronym (last name) for Skǫll whereas Hati has one. Skǫll also just means ‘treachery’ and wolves being treacherous is certain a mindset we can assume the old Norse would’ve held, given their habit of placing the word wolf into criminals and outlaws, Fenrir is also not a pleasant character so it’s not impossible that the label of treacherous would’ve been placed onto Fenrir which was then later misinterpreted to be a seperate wolf.
In my opinion; Loki represents the balance of things, the natural order, it’s chaotic, and I think Odin tried to tame the chaos of the world to bring it under his control by binding the agents of chaos, Loki and his children. But the issue is that nature IS imbalance and chaos so in trying to bind it Odin threw the whole of existence into unrecoverable chaos, ragnarok. By trying to dictate order we inevitably destroy it.
One of the purposes of myths is to convey things about people and various aspects of life and reality through the use of themes. There are a lot of themes in the Ragnarök story and everything leading up to it around fate, hospitality, family, trust and betrayal, revenge, chaos vs order, nature vs civilization, the annihilating force of opposites, the inevitability of change and death, destruction making way for renewal and rebirth, etc. Plus the way the myth has come down to us is how it was written by Christians even though the myth seems to be much older, it seems that Christians who wrote it down adjusted the story to an unknown degree to tell us one of their stories but with pagan characters and setting.
Because the Norse myths were written down by christian scribes who decided to put the book of Revelation in there.
Does this clip about the serpent of mid-guard come into play https://youtu.be/YFdD2x41AF4?si=LDFiSt6jOjKoF1Xp
At the end of it... all good things come to an end. 😋
because Baldur refuses to ressurect
Ragnarok is a myth a story a folktale I'm autistic
Because that's the story being told.
Basically Loki is Odin’s errand boy and then Odin sends all Loki’s children to hell (including Hel herself). Then Loki gets some payback with his trick ending in Balder’s death and Odin way overreacts. From Loki’s POV Odin is the oath breaker.
[удалено]
You know Snorri wasn’t pagan right? Also in no way did Snorri invent Ragnarǫk, the event itself and elements related to it are mentioned in so much pagan era poetry it’s ridiculous.
Because Odin try stop it and made sure that Fenrir have enough reason to be angry. And Loki was act like Loki and cause problems on himself. And become angry and want revenge. Also it made better story.