As a man, I can confirm that nothing could ever hurt me more than a woman has. In all seriousness, Gudrun is using the only real weapon she has, and she uses the hell out of it. As for whether or not she wields it with malicious intent, I'm not sure. Either way, this was another great read; there's a reason I'm subscribed!
I appreciate this post! As I was reading Laxardal, I too was curious about Gudrun's efforts and means to get her way. I agree that she does come across as malicious at times and is generally unkind to those around her in favor of her own wants, but I also found myself wondering about how much she felt what she was doing was necessary in order to maintain herself and her life. Her father was alive throughout her multiple marriages, but after her first divorce I wondered what options a woman would have had at the time, other than to return to her father and hope for a future marriage. We've spent a lot of time discussing women and the agency that they do and don't have in a variety of situations, so to some extent, I still attribute some of her actions and choices to a need to ensure a place as someone's wife and means to live relatively well. However, as has been said, she definitely could have gone about all of these things in a much less hurtful, damaging way.
Christine, your assertions in this post echo my own during my discussion leading! I too yearned to discuss Gudrun in favor of a more rhetorical lens. When discussing women's agency (or lack-thereof) in the sagas, one cannot forget Gudrun because she is a titan amongst the patriarchy and she no doubt paves her own way throughout. This road she creates for herself is born from a rhetorical precision instead of a ferocious killing streak, however. As you note, Gudrun's "femme fatale" behavior is quite extraordinary and I actually correlated her line at the end to a possible character arc for her. She is fully aware of her powers of persuasion, at least she must be based on her realization that she did, indeed, treat Kjartan the worst.
I really like how you've portrayed Gudrun's womanliness as a weapon, something she can use for good or evil. I think her innate nature as a woman, as a beautiful woman at that, is a fortunate character trait that really has no moral meaning, but what she chooses to do with what she has, that can be morally coded. There are instances where I find Gudrun's actions petty (especially with how she treats Hrefna), and I wonder where pettiness and jealousy fits in your question - are jealousy and pettiness evil attributes are things that cause evil actions? Great post!
This was a question I was wondering about in my substack too, and I would love to talk more about this topic. Simply, I think Gudrun-like the other characters within Laxardal Saga–is human. This quality of humanity makes her and the men, specifically Bolli and Kjartan, to be extremely dynamic and faultful but also very real. Her actions are those of a woman hurt and retaliating within her narrow margin of liberty. The brothers as well are not necessarily evil for their acts against one another, or even Bolli's eventual fratricide... I suppose within the answer choices you provided, Gudrun is placed in this role because of the people around her; but she is powerful in her own right and is able to manipulate those in her life to protect her heart and her ambitions.
Christine, I think it is so interesting to look at these medieval characters through the lens of modern tropes, such as the femme fatale. I think more often than not these women are not evil because of their beauty and the actions that ensue because of their outwardly appearance, but rather, they are placed into this role because of the men around them. Gudrun's beauty grants her even more power.
As a man, I can confirm that nothing could ever hurt me more than a woman has. In all seriousness, Gudrun is using the only real weapon she has, and she uses the hell out of it. As for whether or not she wields it with malicious intent, I'm not sure. Either way, this was another great read; there's a reason I'm subscribed!
I appreciate this post! As I was reading Laxardal, I too was curious about Gudrun's efforts and means to get her way. I agree that she does come across as malicious at times and is generally unkind to those around her in favor of her own wants, but I also found myself wondering about how much she felt what she was doing was necessary in order to maintain herself and her life. Her father was alive throughout her multiple marriages, but after her first divorce I wondered what options a woman would have had at the time, other than to return to her father and hope for a future marriage. We've spent a lot of time discussing women and the agency that they do and don't have in a variety of situations, so to some extent, I still attribute some of her actions and choices to a need to ensure a place as someone's wife and means to live relatively well. However, as has been said, she definitely could have gone about all of these things in a much less hurtful, damaging way.
Christine, your assertions in this post echo my own during my discussion leading! I too yearned to discuss Gudrun in favor of a more rhetorical lens. When discussing women's agency (or lack-thereof) in the sagas, one cannot forget Gudrun because she is a titan amongst the patriarchy and she no doubt paves her own way throughout. This road she creates for herself is born from a rhetorical precision instead of a ferocious killing streak, however. As you note, Gudrun's "femme fatale" behavior is quite extraordinary and I actually correlated her line at the end to a possible character arc for her. She is fully aware of her powers of persuasion, at least she must be based on her realization that she did, indeed, treat Kjartan the worst.
I don’t think she’s evil; she is using the power that is available to her. If anything, Gudrun is resourceful, although malicious in nature.
I really like how you've portrayed Gudrun's womanliness as a weapon, something she can use for good or evil. I think her innate nature as a woman, as a beautiful woman at that, is a fortunate character trait that really has no moral meaning, but what she chooses to do with what she has, that can be morally coded. There are instances where I find Gudrun's actions petty (especially with how she treats Hrefna), and I wonder where pettiness and jealousy fits in your question - are jealousy and pettiness evil attributes are things that cause evil actions? Great post!
This was a question I was wondering about in my substack too, and I would love to talk more about this topic. Simply, I think Gudrun-like the other characters within Laxardal Saga–is human. This quality of humanity makes her and the men, specifically Bolli and Kjartan, to be extremely dynamic and faultful but also very real. Her actions are those of a woman hurt and retaliating within her narrow margin of liberty. The brothers as well are not necessarily evil for their acts against one another, or even Bolli's eventual fratricide... I suppose within the answer choices you provided, Gudrun is placed in this role because of the people around her; but she is powerful in her own right and is able to manipulate those in her life to protect her heart and her ambitions.
Christine, I think it is so interesting to look at these medieval characters through the lens of modern tropes, such as the femme fatale. I think more often than not these women are not evil because of their beauty and the actions that ensue because of their outwardly appearance, but rather, they are placed into this role because of the men around them. Gudrun's beauty grants her even more power.