Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

posts for Part II of The Cross

As the saga comes to its end, we encounter an eventful 8th of 9 Parts, unfortunately mainly bad. A few comments:
1. I was surprised that both Simon and Erlend wield axes to kill someone with what appears to be minimal provocation even for the more barbaric times. Both events led to their eventual demise. While, with Erlend's aid, Simon escaped the immediate consequence of his axe-wielding, I think the event may have encouraged Simon to intervene in the conflict that resulted in his minor, yet eventually mortal, injury.
2. As expected, Erlend and Kristin's character flaws overcame their other attributes, preventing a reconciliation and happily ever after resolution. Yes, I do think they have good attributes and I am fond of both characters. I was a bit surprised that it was Erlend who out-stubborned Kristin than vice-versa.
3. Due to the psychological insight into the characters, I get lulled into viewing them as similar to the 19th century Europeans I often read about, and then get reminded by events that it is only the late Middle Ages.
4. As I move on to the concluding Part, I am wondering about the fate of the boys.

Brian wrote: "As the saga comes to its end, we encounter an eventful 8th of 9 Parts, unfortunately mainly bad. A few comments:
1. I was surprised that both Simon and Erlend wield axes to kill someone with what a..."

Yes, my thoughts were 'beware axe-wielding Norwegians.' Seemed to be a common thing in the story yet seems so bizarre today. Although I suppose today we have gun touting maniacs instead who do far more damage. Has anything changed much I wonder? Still, emotions outweighing conscience.

Well. That was rather a shock.

I do agree that the casual violence of the times made such things more common than they should be. As Kirstin said to Erlend, those who wield swords, die on them.

Brian wrote: "As the saga comes to its end, we encounter an eventful 8th of 9 Parts, unfortunately mainly bad. A few comments:
1. I was surprised that both Simon and Erlend wield axes to kill someone with what a..."

I think what I find most annoying about Kirstin is that she constantly keeps going back over her grievances. I had hoped that after nearly losing Erlend she would finally stop pulling them out whenever she wants to have a go at him, but no. And then she has absolutely no self awareness unless someone almost literally rubs her face in it. She didn't register how horrible a mother she was at times and then complains that her kids don't talk to her. As Ulf said to her at one point 'I've grown up and gotten wiser. You're still as blindly stupid as you always were'.

Erlends death can really be dumped fairly squarely on her shoulders.

As for being surprised that Erlend was more stubborn than she was, I wasn't. I think he'd been pushed so far that that fight was the last straw. He'd just had enough of the way that Kristin treated him and finally decided that he wasn't going to take it anymore. So he left. And after he left and enjoyed being away from people he didn't like, made up his mind that he wasn't going to come back. Erlend is pretty selfish too after all.

Nicola wrote: "Brian wrote: "As the saga comes to its end, we encounter an eventful 8th of 9 Parts, unfortunately mainly bad. A few comments:
1. I was surprised that both Simon and Erlend wield axes to kill someo..."

I wasn't too shocked at Erlend's decision either. While he did marry Kristin their relationship was never as close as she, certainly, expected. I agree with Nicola that she wore him down and at the end he was totally checked out of the relationship.

I wanted to shake them both! Kristin can certainly hold a grudge, but Erlend seems to have a butterfly mind that never settles to anything.

I did think Erlend was unreasonable to expect her to leave the children and live with him in the hut. But she was unreasonable not letting him know what was going on with the new baby, and giving it his name when the custom was only to do that when a man was dead. They needed a good relationship counsellor! The old priest could have handled it, but not the new one.

But taking a step back, I was just reminded by a comment in the last section thread that they are fictional characters and this is a female author holding a female character very much responsible for the way her life turns out, instead of seeing her as someone whose fate or position is defined by the fate/position of the man she marries.

On the one hand, we might say Kristin isn't a great example of noble womanhood. On the other, nobody bosses her around. In fact, the women generally seem to be tough characters with a lot of independence ... but then they often use it in spiteful or destructive ways.

I keep changing my mind about whether the author values women's independence or thinks that giving them responsibility is a disaster. Perhaps she was just raising the question.

Rosemary wrote: On the one hand, we might say Kristin isn't a great example of noble womanhood. On the other, nobody bosses her around. In fact, the women generally seem to be tough characters with a lot of independence ... but then they often use it in spiteful or destructive ways."


That's a good point. To me Kristin was stuffed full of flaws, flaws which outweighed her virtues, and in the end I don't think she overcame them. She just lived her life and then died.

I guess I found it so frustrating because no one really seemed fulfilled, every main character really died more or less unhappy and with what could be called a rather wasted life or, at least, many missed opportunities for life paths which lead in better directions.

Is this more realistic than the 'every one lives happily ever after' that so many books offer us?

Yes, I guess it's more realistic - although I think most of us who keep making the same mistakes over and over do learn not to in the end.

It's also a question of where the author chooses to end the story. If we'd ended with Kristin's wedding, as so many romance books do, it might have seemed like a traditional happy ever after.