TVTropes: Nibelungenlied
Jan. 4th, 2021 07:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ellerSo, I’ve been amusing myself with reading the TVTropes discussion of the Nibelungenlied. It was fun. XD It’s very obvious the commentary is written by Americans, which makes it a meta-meta-meta thing of How Americans React To Old German Poetry. (It says more about contemporary US culture than about the Nibelungenlied itself!) It’s fascinating, surprising, and occasionally quite funny.
My sources are the pages
YMMV / Nibelungenlied and
Literature / Nibelungenlied
accessed today, Jan. 4, 2021
These interpretations are fascinating. I’ll put the TVtropes quotes in quotation marks. I’m putting my fandom ramblings behind cuts so you can happily ignore them if you’re not into medieval poetry. :D Also: contains spoilers.
”Much like Madame Defarge, modern audiences find Kriemhild more sympathetic and tragic than perhaps the original author and text intended.”
Eh, really? Considering how much independent plot Kriemhild gets – that much autonomy of female characters is unusual in epics of the time! – I believe the author actually liked her a lot.More than I do, anyway. I’d even argue sympathy for Kriemhild might have decayed over time: by medieval standards, she had good reason for mass slaughter. By modern German standards, she just comes across as unnecessarily brutal, and possibly crazy. Very confusing.
”Moral Event Horizon: Many will feel that Hagen crosses this by killing Ortlieb, Kriemhilde's and Etzel's son.”
Really, that’s the thing American readers find shocking? Ah, cultural differences. Not that killing a child is acceptable by modern German standards, either, but Hagen does some things that are arguably worse…
”For modern audience, the end when Etzel and Hildebrand decide to kill Kriemhild because she killed Hagen despite the fact that the latter killed a huge number of Huns including Etzel's six year old son. This is a case of Values Dissonance: a woman cannot execute the sentence herself and for a hero being killed by a woman was a shameful end.”
That’s almost it, anyway. Main issue is that Hagen was unarmed at the time, and you don’t kill unarmed opponents. XD (Of course, Hagen had to die like that: it’s, basically, poetic justice for killing an unarmed Siegfried.) So the TVtropes discussion may be a case of Meta Values Dissonance. LOL
”Misaimed Fandom - it seems save to assume that the author wanted to tell a tale of how revenge and Honor Before Reason are not good ways to live your life by. However, the Nazis quite gleefully took the senseless slaughter at Kreimhild's feast as something to emulate.”
Almost true, but not quite, considering most characters only pretend to care about honor but act, even by the standards of the time, quite dishonorably. Actually, I believe that’s the main reason everyone has to die: they’re all dishonored in some way or other, so no other end is conceivable for them. The author doesn’t question the concept of honor itself. (Not much, anyway.) Still: the senseless slaughter can clearly be considered less-than-subtle social criticism. And, yeah, taking it as something to emulate is Misaimed Fandom. Indeed.
”What is especially weird is the famous "Stab-in-the-Back" Nazi-German Right Wing fantasy cites imagery taken from Hagen doing the same to Siegfried in the epic, and yet it's Hagen and the Burgundians they want to emulate?”
Poor American confused about old German values. XD The Nazis were actually quite consistent. They tried to portray Siegfried as some kind of noble folk hero (which, let’s face it, he isn’t) who is cruelly betrayed (which, uh, he is, but he had it coming) but, at the same time, considered Hagen to possess many good qualities, like bravery (yeah, no doubt about that), intelligence (yes), and loyalty (which is seriously questionable, but never mind). This may appear like a contradiction to Americans, but isn’t to Germans, who are used to more moral ambivalence in their storytelling. (It’s a typical American storytelling thing, that when there are two opponents, one of them has to be the hero and the other the villain.) In this case… It’s more complex than that. I don’t think either of these “heroes” is more or less morally upstanding than the other.
”He brings Hagen bound to Kriemhild, who personally strikes him dead — to the disgust of Dietrich's old companion-in-arms, Hildebrand, who slays her for striking down an unarmed man.”
Oh, funny - this section of TVTropes gets it right! XD
”On the other hand, the Lied's (possibly clerical) author himself had imposed Christianity rather awkwardly on a decidedly paganish story — as none other than Goethe once remarked, the Nibelung heroes seem to go to church largely in order to get into another fight.”
True, true. The story is rather paganish. In older versions, Hagen/Högni even appears as something like an incarnation of Odin. (The one-eyed thing and some other attributes give it away.) In the Nibelungenlied, that part is removed – but, yes, in a rather clumsy way. However, if we’re citing Goethe, we should do it correctly, right? Goethe originally talks about “heroes and heroines”, and I believe his refusal to use the generic masculinum is intentional: let’s not forget the main churchgoing conflict is between the ladies. (Also? I doubt the author was clerical. The whole thing just doesn't read very religious - not even in terms of medieval Christianity. Honestly, to me it reads like the few mentionings of Christian stuff were just slapped on to avoid censorship or accusations of heresy or whatnot.)
”Bed Trick: The final stage of Siegried's winning of Brunhild for Gunther. Gunther's, Hagen's, and Kriemhild's suspicions about whether he went all the way or not lead to the succession of killings that make up the rest of the plot.”
Wait - Brunhild’s suspicions don’t count? XDDDD Also, there are other reasons that certainly contribute to the succession of killings. LOL
”Bound and Gagged: Gunther's initial, failed, sexual advances on the night of his marriage to Brunhild end with him being overpowered, bound and suspended from a nail in the ceiling (famously depicted in Henry Fuseli's drawing of the scene). Subsequent critics have done little to downplay the various erotic implications of this scene.”
It’s been a favorite scene with 19th century illustrators, in general: some of it is quite clearly bondage porn. Perfectly justified by the original text, of course. XD
”Deliberate Values Dissonance: Whoever the author of Nibelungenlied was, he (or she) must have enjoyed shocking the audience with streams of blood.”
LOLOLOL
I’m not sure the original audience was shocked, precisely. IMHO, even the "moral" of the text might have been a pretense (or background) for a good sex-and-crime story... One thing is for sure: the author enjoyed graphic descriptions of violence.
”Grey-and-Gray Morality: No single character is either truly good nor motivated by evil; the drama of the epic concerns the moral conflicts of each character attempting to fulfill their duties. Of course, plenty of their acts are unnecessarily malicious, motivated by vengeance, plain dishonest, or otherwise inviting violence.”
That looks a bit contradictory to me. ;)
”Instrument of Murder: Volker the Minstrel is so named because of his use of a sword that doubles as a violin bow.”
Actually, it’s a fiddle bow that’s occasionally used to decapitate people, but never mind. Volker owns a sword that’s clearly a different item. (Of course, in some scenes it's deliberately left unclear which of the two is used. The parallel, at least, is intentional.) Also, he's called "the Minstrel" because he is a minstrel. Isn't it funny how the Nibelungenlied's author decided to make the minstrel character the most violent guy around? XD
”Last Villain Stand: The last stand of the Nibelungs in Etzel's burning hall.”
Eh, I suppose so… If you want to call the Nibelungs villains for fighting back after being invited to a party that’s essentially a huge plot to kill them. At least one of them (Giselher) is a perfectly innocent victim, even: he never did anything to Kriemhild or her husband...
”Nasty Party: What Etzel's shindig turns into, thanks to the inveterate hatred of Kriemhild and Hagen.”
I'm not even 100% sure Hagen had anything personal against Kriemhild, actually – he just didn’t consider her feelings when he, you know, murdered her husband… XD And after that, he belatedly realizes he has to take her seriously as an enemy. He does that. Basically, his acts against Kriemhild can be considered attempts at self-preservation, and he'd do them no matter what his feelings. Kriemhild's feelings about Hagen, though? Pure, unadulterated hatred.
”Revenge: Essentially a dark, pitiless exploration of the lengths one has to go to and the lines one has to cross to conduct revenge.”
Not wrong, precisely, but a very American interpretation. From Kriemhild's point of view, she's not crossing any lines, until maybe at the very end...
”Sociopathic Hero: Hagen. In spades.”
REALLY???
Ah. I suppose from an American PoV, it really looks like that. Except, of course, Hagen isn’t a sociopath. Not even remotely. He’s just pretty amoral – and the few moral values he holds high are not the ones that would be recognized by modern Americans as moral values at all. But, of course, Hagen is a very virtuous guy! He forms meaningful relationships with other people (indeed, he may be the only character who really takes friendship seriously), he’s a great liar (which is a skill as much as a moral deficit), and in the end he bravely meets his fate (to the extent that he willingly works towards his own destruction, which would be the height of courage for medieval German readers but probably just looks crazy to Americans). Of course, that’s obfuscated a bit by Hagen murdering almost everybody he meets. But, uh, not every remorseless murderer is a sociopath, so, let’s not pathologize this.
”Undying Loyalty: Hagen to Gunther and later also Brunhild; the root of his endless hatred for Kriemhild is that Kriemhild made Brunhild cry. (In German, even the trope namer: "Nibelungentreue". Fell out of fashion due to abuse by Those Wacky Nazis and is used exclusively as a negative since.)”
Actually, I seriously doubt this.
Hagen’s loyalty to Brunhild is clearly a sham: he’s using it as an excuse to act against Kriemhild, whom he… maybe doesn’t hate, precisely, but wants out of the way because he considers her a threat: too dangerous to leave alive. (As it turns out, he’s right about that.) My guess? Hagen doesn't give a f*ck about Brunhilds tears, but if they provide him with a (thin) reason to act against Kriemhild, he'll take that.
And Hagen’s “loyalty” to Gunther… Is more like a prime example of “Loyalty: How Not To”. He lies to Gunther more than once (hint: loyal vassals are Not Supposed To Do That) and about important things, too. He makes no attempt to keep Gunther from crossing the river despite already knowing they’re all doomed after that. (He even goes so far as to destroy the boat after the crossing, so there’s really No Way Back.) He very efficiently destroys his own court. Oh, and in the end, he actively prompts Kriemhild to kill Gunther. If that’s what loyalty looks like… Well. No, thanks.
The only ones Hagen shows any real loyalty to are himself, Volker, himself, Rüdiger, himself, his fate and himself. In about that order.
(The Nazis, of course, had some interesting ways of text interpretation.)
My sources are the pages
YMMV / Nibelungenlied and
Literature / Nibelungenlied
accessed today, Jan. 4, 2021
These interpretations are fascinating. I’ll put the TVtropes quotes in quotation marks. I’m putting my fandom ramblings behind cuts so you can happily ignore them if you’re not into medieval poetry. :D Also: contains spoilers.
”Much like Madame Defarge, modern audiences find Kriemhild more sympathetic and tragic than perhaps the original author and text intended.”
Eh, really? Considering how much independent plot Kriemhild gets – that much autonomy of female characters is unusual in epics of the time! – I believe the author actually liked her a lot.
”Moral Event Horizon: Many will feel that Hagen crosses this by killing Ortlieb, Kriemhilde's and Etzel's son.”
Really, that’s the thing American readers find shocking? Ah, cultural differences. Not that killing a child is acceptable by modern German standards, either, but Hagen does some things that are arguably worse…
”For modern audience, the end when Etzel and Hildebrand decide to kill Kriemhild because she killed Hagen despite the fact that the latter killed a huge number of Huns including Etzel's six year old son. This is a case of Values Dissonance: a woman cannot execute the sentence herself and for a hero being killed by a woman was a shameful end.”
That’s almost it, anyway. Main issue is that Hagen was unarmed at the time, and you don’t kill unarmed opponents. XD (Of course, Hagen had to die like that: it’s, basically, poetic justice for killing an unarmed Siegfried.) So the TVtropes discussion may be a case of Meta Values Dissonance. LOL
”Misaimed Fandom - it seems save to assume that the author wanted to tell a tale of how revenge and Honor Before Reason are not good ways to live your life by. However, the Nazis quite gleefully took the senseless slaughter at Kreimhild's feast as something to emulate.”
Almost true, but not quite, considering most characters only pretend to care about honor but act, even by the standards of the time, quite dishonorably. Actually, I believe that’s the main reason everyone has to die: they’re all dishonored in some way or other, so no other end is conceivable for them. The author doesn’t question the concept of honor itself. (Not much, anyway.) Still: the senseless slaughter can clearly be considered less-than-subtle social criticism. And, yeah, taking it as something to emulate is Misaimed Fandom. Indeed.
”What is especially weird is the famous "Stab-in-the-Back" Nazi-German Right Wing fantasy cites imagery taken from Hagen doing the same to Siegfried in the epic, and yet it's Hagen and the Burgundians they want to emulate?”
Poor American confused about old German values. XD The Nazis were actually quite consistent. They tried to portray Siegfried as some kind of noble folk hero (which, let’s face it, he isn’t) who is cruelly betrayed (which, uh, he is, but he had it coming) but, at the same time, considered Hagen to possess many good qualities, like bravery (yeah, no doubt about that), intelligence (yes), and loyalty (which is seriously questionable, but never mind). This may appear like a contradiction to Americans, but isn’t to Germans, who are used to more moral ambivalence in their storytelling. (It’s a typical American storytelling thing, that when there are two opponents, one of them has to be the hero and the other the villain.) In this case… It’s more complex than that. I don’t think either of these “heroes” is more or less morally upstanding than the other.
”He brings Hagen bound to Kriemhild, who personally strikes him dead — to the disgust of Dietrich's old companion-in-arms, Hildebrand, who slays her for striking down an unarmed man.”
Oh, funny - this section of TVTropes gets it right! XD
”On the other hand, the Lied's (possibly clerical) author himself had imposed Christianity rather awkwardly on a decidedly paganish story — as none other than Goethe once remarked, the Nibelung heroes seem to go to church largely in order to get into another fight.”
True, true. The story is rather paganish. In older versions, Hagen/Högni even appears as something like an incarnation of Odin. (The one-eyed thing and some other attributes give it away.) In the Nibelungenlied, that part is removed – but, yes, in a rather clumsy way. However, if we’re citing Goethe, we should do it correctly, right? Goethe originally talks about “heroes and heroines”, and I believe his refusal to use the generic masculinum is intentional: let’s not forget the main churchgoing conflict is between the ladies. (Also? I doubt the author was clerical. The whole thing just doesn't read very religious - not even in terms of medieval Christianity. Honestly, to me it reads like the few mentionings of Christian stuff were just slapped on to avoid censorship or accusations of heresy or whatnot.)
”Bed Trick: The final stage of Siegried's winning of Brunhild for Gunther. Gunther's, Hagen's, and Kriemhild's suspicions about whether he went all the way or not lead to the succession of killings that make up the rest of the plot.”
Wait - Brunhild’s suspicions don’t count? XDDDD Also, there are other reasons that certainly contribute to the succession of killings. LOL
”Bound and Gagged: Gunther's initial, failed, sexual advances on the night of his marriage to Brunhild end with him being overpowered, bound and suspended from a nail in the ceiling (famously depicted in Henry Fuseli's drawing of the scene). Subsequent critics have done little to downplay the various erotic implications of this scene.”
It’s been a favorite scene with 19th century illustrators, in general: some of it is quite clearly bondage porn. Perfectly justified by the original text, of course. XD
”Deliberate Values Dissonance: Whoever the author of Nibelungenlied was, he (or she) must have enjoyed shocking the audience with streams of blood.”
LOLOLOL
I’m not sure the original audience was shocked, precisely. IMHO, even the "moral" of the text might have been a pretense (or background) for a good sex-and-crime story... One thing is for sure: the author enjoyed graphic descriptions of violence.
”Grey-and-Gray Morality: No single character is either truly good nor motivated by evil; the drama of the epic concerns the moral conflicts of each character attempting to fulfill their duties. Of course, plenty of their acts are unnecessarily malicious, motivated by vengeance, plain dishonest, or otherwise inviting violence.”
That looks a bit contradictory to me. ;)
”Instrument of Murder: Volker the Minstrel is so named because of his use of a sword that doubles as a violin bow.”
Actually, it’s a fiddle bow that’s occasionally used to decapitate people, but never mind. Volker owns a sword that’s clearly a different item. (Of course, in some scenes it's deliberately left unclear which of the two is used. The parallel, at least, is intentional.) Also, he's called "the Minstrel" because he is a minstrel. Isn't it funny how the Nibelungenlied's author decided to make the minstrel character the most violent guy around? XD
”Last Villain Stand: The last stand of the Nibelungs in Etzel's burning hall.”
Eh, I suppose so… If you want to call the Nibelungs villains for fighting back after being invited to a party that’s essentially a huge plot to kill them. At least one of them (Giselher) is a perfectly innocent victim, even: he never did anything to Kriemhild or her husband...
”Nasty Party: What Etzel's shindig turns into, thanks to the inveterate hatred of Kriemhild and Hagen.”
I'm not even 100% sure Hagen had anything personal against Kriemhild, actually – he just didn’t consider her feelings when he, you know, murdered her husband… XD And after that, he belatedly realizes he has to take her seriously as an enemy. He does that. Basically, his acts against Kriemhild can be considered attempts at self-preservation, and he'd do them no matter what his feelings. Kriemhild's feelings about Hagen, though? Pure, unadulterated hatred.
”Revenge: Essentially a dark, pitiless exploration of the lengths one has to go to and the lines one has to cross to conduct revenge.”
Not wrong, precisely, but a very American interpretation. From Kriemhild's point of view, she's not crossing any lines, until maybe at the very end...
”Sociopathic Hero: Hagen. In spades.”
REALLY???
Ah. I suppose from an American PoV, it really looks like that. Except, of course, Hagen isn’t a sociopath. Not even remotely. He’s just pretty amoral – and the few moral values he holds high are not the ones that would be recognized by modern Americans as moral values at all. But, of course, Hagen is a very virtuous guy! He forms meaningful relationships with other people (indeed, he may be the only character who really takes friendship seriously), he’s a great liar (which is a skill as much as a moral deficit), and in the end he bravely meets his fate (to the extent that he willingly works towards his own destruction, which would be the height of courage for medieval German readers but probably just looks crazy to Americans). Of course, that’s obfuscated a bit by Hagen murdering almost everybody he meets. But, uh, not every remorseless murderer is a sociopath, so, let’s not pathologize this.
”Undying Loyalty: Hagen to Gunther and later also Brunhild; the root of his endless hatred for Kriemhild is that Kriemhild made Brunhild cry. (In German, even the trope namer: "Nibelungentreue". Fell out of fashion due to abuse by Those Wacky Nazis and is used exclusively as a negative since.)”
Actually, I seriously doubt this.
Hagen’s loyalty to Brunhild is clearly a sham: he’s using it as an excuse to act against Kriemhild, whom he… maybe doesn’t hate, precisely, but wants out of the way because he considers her a threat: too dangerous to leave alive. (As it turns out, he’s right about that.) My guess? Hagen doesn't give a f*ck about Brunhilds tears, but if they provide him with a (thin) reason to act against Kriemhild, he'll take that.
And Hagen’s “loyalty” to Gunther… Is more like a prime example of “Loyalty: How Not To”. He lies to Gunther more than once (hint: loyal vassals are Not Supposed To Do That) and about important things, too. He makes no attempt to keep Gunther from crossing the river despite already knowing they’re all doomed after that. (He even goes so far as to destroy the boat after the crossing, so there’s really No Way Back.) He very efficiently destroys his own court. Oh, and in the end, he actively prompts Kriemhild to kill Gunther. If that’s what loyalty looks like… Well. No, thanks.
The only ones Hagen shows any real loyalty to are himself, Volker, himself, Rüdiger, himself, his fate and himself. In about that order.
(The Nazis, of course, had some interesting ways of text interpretation.)
