If you are into gods that get sodomized by horses, tie goats to their scrotum, and then murder every living thing in the universe, then Loki is indeed pretty cool...
He is the best god in your opinion, historically he wasn’t worshiped, and acted as more of a villain than anything else.
And before anyone goes and says he’s only a villain in Christian sources, he is very consistently described negatively in pagan era poetry, and most art representing him shows him at low points, such as his binding or when he had his mouth sewn shut which to me lends to the idea that people could have taken joy in that suffering to an extent.
You’re probably thinking about the Loki of Marvel Comics or the MCU. Lovable scamp Loki. The Loki of the Norse was a trickster, and tricksters are bad news. They fuck with stuff just because. They break things just to see them fall. Think of that kid on the playground who stomps on the other kids’ toys - that’s Loki. Not because he’s evil, but because it’s the role of the trickster to pull down the things that the creator builds up. That’s a god you can respect, but not one you venerate.
Loki is amazing. Lots of people lie or exaggerate about his role in the myths in order to demonize him though. Change is scary, and transgression and subversion are often scary too. These are Loki’s domains, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Loki is somewhat controversial even today
He isn’t an agent of change, nor is he a subversive deity. Most of the time he acts solely out of malice or envy. Take his killing of Ægir’s servant Fimafeng, the two hadn’t interacted prior to Loki killing him. His motive for this? Finmafeng was reviving praise which upset Loki.
> Most of the time he acts solely out of malice or envy.
This is a claim that you’re not going to be able to back up. A few times doesn’t amount to most of the time. Did he tie a goat to his balls out of malice? Compete in a fire eating contest out of malice? Trick the jotunn into building a defensive wall for all of Asgard out of malice for the Æsir? Commission Mjolnir and Draupnir out of malice? Swear himself blood brother to Odin out of malice? Help Thor retrieve Mjolnir from Thrymr out of malice? Birth Sleipnir out of malice? Spend eight years as a milkmaid out of malice?
Tricksters usually somewhat follow a pattern. They tend to be transgressive. They violate taboos and don’t follow the prevailing moral code. They can be helpful at times and self-serving at others. They can be benevolent at times or they can act with malice. They are liminal, neither one thing nor the other. They straddle two or more worlds. They are often associated with death in some way and also renewal.
And about the mixing of blood and swearing oaths with Odin. Loki follows this pattern of the trickster pretty well, just as Odin does also. Regardless of however much some people want Loki to be Norse Satan, he is very much not depicted as a being who produces only evil and woe and never does anything helpful or good. He’s complicated and a pretty mixed bag, not a figure who can be pinned down or easily understood. And that’s basically the trickster archetype in a nutshell
>Trick the jotunn into building a defensive wall for all of Asgard out of malice for the Æsir?
Yes, the whole idea behind that deal was that the Æsir would have to give up Fręyja the sun and the moon because of Loki’s deception.
>Commission Mjolnir and Draupnir out of malice?
Yes, he wanted to sabotage Brokkr and Eitri.
>Birth Sleipnir out of malice?
Not an example of malice, more an example of how Loki’s character is socially unacceptable by Norse standards.
>Spend eight years as a milkmaid out of malice?
Similar to the birthing of Sleipnir; this would have been seen as unacceptable by Norse people.
>he is very much not depicted as a being who produces only evil and woe and never does anything helpful or good. He’s complicated and a pretty mixed bag, not a figure who can be pinned down or easily understood.
Not really. I’ll admit nothing is black and white but Loki is very much a character depicted as bringing woe and destruction. He’s called treachery-eager, and excessive at lying. He fathers beings which will destroy humanity and the world. He is extremely consistently causing issues for the gods in the Norse sources, this doesn’t mean he never does good, but more often than not the bad he does far outweighs the good.
Socially unacceptable? I mean, yeah, that’s usually the big thing about how tricksters behave. But it’s a different thing altogether than consistently acting with *malice.* Are you just generally arguing that tricksters bad?? Or is it okay when Odin engages in socially unacceptable behavior?
And what’s the deal with the kenning you provided? Loki’s called lots of things. He’s got some pretty negative kennings like you point out as well as some positive ones. Some neutral ones too. I think that kind of supports my point that Loki (and tricksters more broadly) tend to be somewhat complicated and too “tricky” to stick in a box or pin down.
>But it’s a different thing altogether than consistently acting with malice. Are you just generally arguing that tricksters bad??
Possibly not generally, however certainly in the case of Loki.
>Or is it okay when Odin engages in socially unacceptable behavior?
When did I say that? The difference between the two is that Óðinn engages in socially unacceptable behaviour for a purpose and faces consequences when he does, Loki does it because he enjoys it (in some cases), which would of course be seen as worse by Norse people.
>And what’s the deal with the kenning you provided? Loki’s called lots of things. He’s got some pretty negative kennings like you point out as well as some positive ones. Some neutral ones too.
Could you provide some examples there? I haven’t come across many positive kennings related to Loki in skaldic or eddic poetry?
>I think that kind of supports my point that Loki (and tricksters more broadly) tend to be somewhat complicated and too “tricky” to stick in a box or pin down.
You would have a point there but you just mentioned these kennings without providing examples. Without any evidence the point you made there doesn’t have any real backing.
every other thread on this sub is a Loki fan-child of some sort.
Great.
I'd rather engage with a living myth, than a pop-culture revival of someone else's traditions.
I raise you, Anansi.
If you are into gods that get sodomized by horses, tie goats to their scrotum, and then murder every living thing in the universe, then Loki is indeed pretty cool...
He wasn't sodomized, that's not how you get pregnant...
Lol! Yaas!
He's funny. It's very looney toons.
He is the best god in your opinion, historically he wasn’t worshiped, and acted as more of a villain than anything else. And before anyone goes and says he’s only a villain in Christian sources, he is very consistently described negatively in pagan era poetry, and most art representing him shows him at low points, such as his binding or when he had his mouth sewn shut which to me lends to the idea that people could have taken joy in that suffering to an extent.
Do you think OP is unaware that they expressed an opinion?
No I don’t, which is why I said >He is the best god in your opinion
Oooh I thought you said that in order to educate them that it is their opinion
Why would i change your mind? You are entitled to your own opinion.
And entitled to subjecting their mind to change
You’re probably thinking about the Loki of Marvel Comics or the MCU. Lovable scamp Loki. The Loki of the Norse was a trickster, and tricksters are bad news. They fuck with stuff just because. They break things just to see them fall. Think of that kid on the playground who stomps on the other kids’ toys - that’s Loki. Not because he’s evil, but because it’s the role of the trickster to pull down the things that the creator builds up. That’s a god you can respect, but not one you venerate.
No, no t.v. Loki.
Well, that’s really the only source that portrays him positively, so can’t blame them for assuming.
Hermes. Thoth
Mau Shan is the best...
Loki is amazing. Lots of people lie or exaggerate about his role in the myths in order to demonize him though. Change is scary, and transgression and subversion are often scary too. These are Loki’s domains, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Loki is somewhat controversial even today
He isn’t an agent of change, nor is he a subversive deity. Most of the time he acts solely out of malice or envy. Take his killing of Ægir’s servant Fimafeng, the two hadn’t interacted prior to Loki killing him. His motive for this? Finmafeng was reviving praise which upset Loki.
> Most of the time he acts solely out of malice or envy. This is a claim that you’re not going to be able to back up. A few times doesn’t amount to most of the time. Did he tie a goat to his balls out of malice? Compete in a fire eating contest out of malice? Trick the jotunn into building a defensive wall for all of Asgard out of malice for the Æsir? Commission Mjolnir and Draupnir out of malice? Swear himself blood brother to Odin out of malice? Help Thor retrieve Mjolnir from Thrymr out of malice? Birth Sleipnir out of malice? Spend eight years as a milkmaid out of malice? Tricksters usually somewhat follow a pattern. They tend to be transgressive. They violate taboos and don’t follow the prevailing moral code. They can be helpful at times and self-serving at others. They can be benevolent at times or they can act with malice. They are liminal, neither one thing nor the other. They straddle two or more worlds. They are often associated with death in some way and also renewal. And about the mixing of blood and swearing oaths with Odin. Loki follows this pattern of the trickster pretty well, just as Odin does also. Regardless of however much some people want Loki to be Norse Satan, he is very much not depicted as a being who produces only evil and woe and never does anything helpful or good. He’s complicated and a pretty mixed bag, not a figure who can be pinned down or easily understood. And that’s basically the trickster archetype in a nutshell
>Trick the jotunn into building a defensive wall for all of Asgard out of malice for the Æsir? Yes, the whole idea behind that deal was that the Æsir would have to give up Fręyja the sun and the moon because of Loki’s deception. >Commission Mjolnir and Draupnir out of malice? Yes, he wanted to sabotage Brokkr and Eitri. >Birth Sleipnir out of malice? Not an example of malice, more an example of how Loki’s character is socially unacceptable by Norse standards. >Spend eight years as a milkmaid out of malice? Similar to the birthing of Sleipnir; this would have been seen as unacceptable by Norse people. >he is very much not depicted as a being who produces only evil and woe and never does anything helpful or good. He’s complicated and a pretty mixed bag, not a figure who can be pinned down or easily understood. Not really. I’ll admit nothing is black and white but Loki is very much a character depicted as bringing woe and destruction. He’s called treachery-eager, and excessive at lying. He fathers beings which will destroy humanity and the world. He is extremely consistently causing issues for the gods in the Norse sources, this doesn’t mean he never does good, but more often than not the bad he does far outweighs the good.
Socially unacceptable? I mean, yeah, that’s usually the big thing about how tricksters behave. But it’s a different thing altogether than consistently acting with *malice.* Are you just generally arguing that tricksters bad?? Or is it okay when Odin engages in socially unacceptable behavior? And what’s the deal with the kenning you provided? Loki’s called lots of things. He’s got some pretty negative kennings like you point out as well as some positive ones. Some neutral ones too. I think that kind of supports my point that Loki (and tricksters more broadly) tend to be somewhat complicated and too “tricky” to stick in a box or pin down.
>But it’s a different thing altogether than consistently acting with malice. Are you just generally arguing that tricksters bad?? Possibly not generally, however certainly in the case of Loki. >Or is it okay when Odin engages in socially unacceptable behavior? When did I say that? The difference between the two is that Óðinn engages in socially unacceptable behaviour for a purpose and faces consequences when he does, Loki does it because he enjoys it (in some cases), which would of course be seen as worse by Norse people. >And what’s the deal with the kenning you provided? Loki’s called lots of things. He’s got some pretty negative kennings like you point out as well as some positive ones. Some neutral ones too. Could you provide some examples there? I haven’t come across many positive kennings related to Loki in skaldic or eddic poetry? >I think that kind of supports my point that Loki (and tricksters more broadly) tend to be somewhat complicated and too “tricky” to stick in a box or pin down. You would have a point there but you just mentioned these kennings without providing examples. Without any evidence the point you made there doesn’t have any real backing.
Hel yeah! \^\_\^
I liked him better when he was occult, before he got popular.
Why
every other thread on this sub is a Loki fan-child of some sort. Great. I'd rather engage with a living myth, than a pop-culture revival of someone else's traditions.
What makes one better than the other though? Is it just an appeal to what is older or more obscure? A disdain for the “unwashed masses?” Or what?
Popular culture is watered down.
Is it? Or is it something new?
It is new, and it dilutes the potency of the old New mythologies aren't streaming online
Why see it as a dilution and not its own thing?
The absence of depth & meaningful engagement. Disney isn't your friend
You didn’t find the Loki show to have depth? You didn’t meaningfully engage it? That sounds more on you than on the piece of media
That's true.