A Pop Culture Portrayal of Viking Myth & Saga in Samurai Jack Episode X: Jack and The Lava Monster

"At last, the gates of Valhalla open to me. 

Rise, warrior! Rise! Honorably I must be defeated. 

I cannot let up."

Samurai Jack confronting the Lava Monster; Samurai Jack Episode X: Jack and The Lava Monster, Photo courtesy of www.sidereel.com

For those who don't know Samurai Jack was a Cartoon Network show that aired in the early 2000s that detailed the adventures of a 'foolish' Samurai warrior wielding a magical sword who was sent into the twisted future by a shape shifting master of darkness named Aku. This episode was written by Michael Manley, and directed by Robert Alvarez & Genndy Tartakovsky. In this strange new time ruled by Aku, the Samurai journeys and quests for 6 seasons of action packed adventure to find a way to return to his own time. Throughout the course of the series Jack encounters a variety of different people. A significant amount of the people Jack encounters have a rich cultural background that is rooted in historical and modern cultures. More often then not these people are victims of Aku's evil, treachery, and corruption.
In this particular episode Jack is walking through a desolate land, and through the wind hears a voice carried on the wind calling him. "come." after ignoring the voice for some time the voice begins to overwhelm his curiosity and he follows it until he arrives at the edge of a scorched blackened earth, and in the distance he sees a large mound of rock. He moves through it, and when he arrives he goes through several arduous ideals, overcomes terrifying obstacles, and throughout the gauntlet we are shown the corpses of those who failed to brave the trials. At last Jack arrives on a circular platform surrounded by lava. A giant man of Rock, rubble and molten lava rises from the ground in front of him and says, 
"Welcome to your doom." They clash in battle for a brief moment and Jack, horrified by what he has seen asks, "Many warriors have been lured here to their end.Why have you done this?" and the monster answers him very simply, "My purpose is to battle."
They continue to battle, and the monster expresses joy in having a battle after so long, and it seems that none before have made it through the gauntlet to get to him.  After an equal matched skirmish Jack stops and refuses to battle any longer. He sits down, and the monster begs him to continue. Jack suggests that he just strike him down, but the monster refuses and states that he cannot strike the defenseless, and implores jack to continue fighting. the monster answers him:

"For freedom.

The master of this kingdom of rock is just a man.

A cursed man trapped in a rock body.

It happened long ago.

So long ago now.

'Twas once a time where I, too, was a man.

A mighty warrior like thee."

A flashback ensues as the monster explains how he came to be this way. He explains that Aku threatened his people, and he the leader of his people waged war against him, and instead of striking him down when they were defeated, Aku imprisoned him deep withing the earth, robbing him of joining his companions in Valhalla for all eternity. Overtime he learns to manipulate the rock around him, and formed a body for himself and the kingdom of rock to lure the greatest warriors in the hope that he will be slain in battle and get access to Valhalla.

Jack agrees to fight him, and the battle is great. After a well matched fight Jack defeats him, and the rock is cast away to reveal a handsome looking warrior who matches the stereotypical appearance of a viking. The man ages rapidly before his eyes and falls to the ground. Jack runs to his side, and he asks for his sword, and tells jack not to be sad. The man dies with his sword in his hand the skies part and two giant glowing golden haired Valkyries descend from the sky to carry the warrior away with them to Valhalla. Jack carves a note indicating his freedom in the pillar in which the monster's saga is carved, and continues on his journey leaving behind him a newly green land.

This story has many mythic elements that directly a line with Viking myth and saga. The belief that a warrior must die in battle to be received in Valhalla, the miserable fate that he is cursed to by Aku, the nobility reveals by insisting that he not battle the defenseless, and the saga like magical beckoning that lures Jack to him are all very reminiscent of both viking myth tales like those told in the Poetic Edda, and the overwhelming sense of dread, yet compulsion to destiny that is present in the sagas. Jack is drawn there against his wishes yet he is compelled there by something magical, a destiny of sorts. In this way Samurai Jack tells a tale that represents the myths and sagas of Viking literature in an unique but respectful and accurate way.

Heroism in the Saga of Grettir the Strong

Even though the ideals of heroism are very prevalent throughout human history, how humanity has defined them have not always been the same. A great example of how our definition of heroism has changed through time can be seen in The Saga of Grettir the Strong. Grettir, the main character of the episodic story, is violent, strong, brave, war-like, and has a rage to match Achilles. 

Pretty creepy picture right? I didn't know Grettir looked so much like a murderous Peter Pan. Anyways, I mention Achilles here because the heroes of the Pre-Christian Vikings, like Beowulf, are very similar in their ideologies to the ancient Greek and Roman heroes of myth, like Achilles. Even though the medieval Viking culture and the ancient Greek culture are very different, their definitions of heroism are very similar. Killing, plundering, and honor in battle are all what matters to these iconic figures, and they were hailed as the great heroes of the time. Grettir the Strong fits right in with this crowd, as he is very passionate about fighting and quick to jump into a battle and kill as he pleases. But what is so unique about The Saga of Grettir the Strong is how it frames Grettir in the context of the story. 

This saga is set during the Christianization of Iceland, and as the culture of the Icelanders begins to change, so do their ideals of heroism. The Christianization of the west brought about a new definition of heroism, the same one that is commonly accepted today. Violence, fury, and honor are no longer venerated as they used to be, instead being replaced by ideals of heroism that champion graciousness, kindness, and sacrifice. Grettir, not exactly keen on graciousness, soon finds himself outdated and an outcast from the rest of his society. He is even outlawed for his violence (although, ironically, that incident of violence was an accident) and forced to live in the wild. And, in the end, Grettir is killed by his enemies before his twenty years of outlawry can be served. He lives by the sword and he dies by the sword. In a way, Grettir’s story also tells us the story of the ideals of classical heroism and how it eventually was pushed out of society and died. And it's all thanks to Glaum. 

Grettir and Beowulf; a Comparative Review

           There is a common trend in literature involving heroes; conflicts, resolutions, struggles, triumphs. A hero really isn't a hero unless they've done something heroic. Story tellers have been coming up with different ways of putting characters through trials and issues since the beginning, many having wildly different approaches. One of the most classic examples of a hero's story comes from Beowulf, aka the oldest piece of surviving Old English literature found to date. His astounding deeds and total badassery make for a great hero story; he kills the bad guys, becomes king, gets loot, and dies after killing off a dragon at the very end. Great stuff, all be it a little rudimentary. However, certain key elements to his story point to connections to another hero's tale; the Saga of Grettir the Strong.


            Grettir's Saga takes a much different approach to the "hero" story, and the use of the word "hero" often comes into question throughout. The author of Grettir's Saga took the normal hero role, but makes the "hero" aspect begin to fade and blur as the story progresses, leading to an interesting and more debatable narrative to the main protagonist's actions. Grettir goes through the same elements of heroism as Beowulf does (killing baddies and such), but gets a little carried away in the stereotypical Viking sense, killing a few more in... "highly questionable" acts of "heroism". Overall, the key difference is that at Grettir's peak in strength and regarded heroism, an evil spirit curses him and begins his downfall. His life takes turn after turn for the worse, and at the end of the book, he dies an infamous outlaw.
          Overall, the key difference of the two is by far the approach to the "hero's journey," Grettir the Strong's leaving the reader with the point of "hero" much more debatable than the flatly stated "lived a hero, died a hero," type found in Beowulf. Getting into certain key elements of the story, some very large similarities do begin to arise however, and that has led many to believe that the two may have bridged from one another.
         
          The main corelation between these two stories are the key monsters they fight, Grettir's being the deformed corpse of a spirit possessed shepard (Glam), and Beowulf's being the notorious hulking troll like creature (Grendel). Both heroes come to fight these creatures in a similar way; a town needs help and enlists them to kill the beasts that have been wreaking havoc upon them. And again, both heroes pretend to be asleep and catch the monster off guard, and both even take on the monster unarmed! (Unarmed having a bit more context in Grendel's case, heheheh) Here we see yet more similarities where the monster's both try to escape, but end up being pinned by the heroes grasp. The differences begin to arise here when Beowulf one ups Grettir in straight up ripping Grendel's arm off at the shoulder, Grettir just dropping Glam on the floor exhausted after tackling him out the door. And while Grendel escapes (to just die shortly after), Glam is beheaded by Grettir's sword (which he probably should have used earlier come to think of it).

        The events stemming from this monster slaying also lead to complete polar opposites, a brief and partial connection technically being able to be made immediately afterwards. Grendel's mother comes and seeks revenge for her dead son and leading to more conflict, and Glam puts a curse on Grettir that makes him afraid of the dark, being alone, and also less heroic and strong from that day forth. While Grendel's mother is an issue, Beowulf takes her down too, pushing him to be the king of the Geats, while Grettir's story begins to turn downhill as everything starts to go wrong for him.

      In conclusion, I'd say it's neat that these two heroes wrestled evil monsters in the middle of the night and killed them, but the similarities end there. Both are great stories none the less, and reading Grettir the Strong has certainly made me more appreciative of ancient literature, as I've started even looking into other old stories to read after.

















       

Why are 'Ghosts' Killed in Such a Gruesome Way?

Twice in The Saga of Grettir the Strong, Grettir beheads a dead man and places his severed head in between his buttocks to ensure the death of the evil spirit. The first incident occurs when Grettir raids the burial mound of an influential local leader. The ghost of the dead man takes physical form and the two tussle. Grettir ends this fight by, of course, severing the ghost’s head and shoving the man's head into an unmentionable place. The footnotes explain that this was a common practice and the accepted method of ‘killing’ troublesome ghosts. However, it is not explained why this very specific method is employed.

In order to understand why the Vikings felt compelled to decapitate ghosts, I conducted
some further research into Viking beliefs about reanimation and hauntings after death.
My research produced two forms ‘ghosts’ that were essentially believed to be reanimated
corpses that were capable of movement and causing harm to the living. Also, I will be referring
to these spirits as male because I was not able to find accounts of any deceased women coming
back as any form of 'ghost'. The first form is the haugbui, a person that remains within his own
burial mound and will generally only reanimate if the mound is disturbed or disrespected.
The ‘ghost’ that Grettir defeats when he steals from the dead man’s burial mound is an example
of a haugbui. The second, and more insidious kind of ‘ghost’, is known as a draugr and is
essentially a grotesquely bloated corpse that rises up after nightfall. Again, Grettir faces a such
a foe in the form of Glaum. Draugrs were thought to have supernatural abilities, such as
Glaum’s paralyzing gaze. Additionally, stories recounting draugrs often portray them as
having an insatiable hunger for life and as disturbingly violent spirits -- even by Viking standards.
Luckily, Vikings gave very specific instructions as to how to vanquish such a disturbing foe.
In order to kill a draugr, one must first engage the dead man in ritualized combat before severing
his head. Then, the entire corpse must be cremated before being buried on land or simply
dumped at sea. Grettir and Thorbjorn follow this example and burying Glaum’s ashes in various
places after his head is severed and placed between his buttocks. However, I was not able to find
a reason as to why a spirit’s head needed to be placed between its own buttocks in order to kill it.

This leads me to speculate that this is such a sign of disrespect that the slayer is quite literally
silencing the spirit as any message it tries to speak will go right up its own rear end. In other
words, it makes me think of this ritual as a spin on the modern ‘kiss my ass’ by instead implying
‘kiss your own ass’. While I personally find this explanation to be entertaining, there may also
be no concrete explanation as to why this ritual was used to ensure the dead could not return.
For example, burning witches at the stake was often employed so that they were not able to
escape their own executions or be able to haunt those who executed them. Why was this done?
Presumably, it seemed a more permanent and inescapable fate to medieval Europe than hanging
from the gallows. Perhaps the placing of the severed head between the buttocks held a similar
significance in Viking culture due to the finality and extreme force of the ritual.

The Merrits of Anti Heroes vs Heroes in writing: A look at Grettir the strong and Deadpool v.s. Beowulf and Spiderman

                An important decision in the process of writing is the choice of protagonist. The entirety of a story can hinge on this choice as it can change the point of view from which the story is told and change the character or person who the readers will most likely connect with. Most stories focus on a protagonist that is either a hero or an anti-hero. Grettir the Strong and Deadpool are prime examples of anti-heroes while popular heroes can be found in the characters of Beowulf and Spiderman.
Anti-Heroes:

              An anti-hero, rather than the traditional hero, allows an author to write the protagonist of the story into taking actions and being in situations which the traditional hero cannot otherwise get into. Grettir the Strong is such an example of this. He, in summary, is a thieving, animal abusing, any random person killing warrior who sometimes helps people if he wants to or thinks he can get a good reward out of it. He may sometimes rid a house of ghosts or a troublesome lady troll but he all the more often will steal a random person's horse or anything else he sees on another person that he thinks should be his.

                 One of the more memorable moments of Grettir's anti-heroic actions is when he went on a string of roadside thieveries, taking horses and supplies from many a passerby. One theft of a particular man's horse (the man's name was most likely Thor-something) prompted the man to chase Grettir across the lands over which he rode the stolen horse and through many farms and homesteads. The chase ultimately ended with the man catching Grettir but letting him go after some epic poem battles in which the two came to some terms of agreement.

                 These less than favorable actions are off set by acts of good like the slaying of the ghost Glam and in doing so saving the farm/homestead which the ghost was haunting. Another act of Grettir's that offsets the man's more criminal actions is the avenging of the murder of his brother Aldi by a man known as Thor-something-else.

                  The combinations of the altruistic acts and the acts more attributed to criminals and deviants, so to speak, mesh together to form a character that most people see as more realistic than the average hero. The actions of Grettir, made possible by his anti-heroic personality, such as stealing what he wants whenever he wants and killing basically whoever makes him angry or frustrated are actions taken by many anti-heroes to varying degrees. These actions cause Grettir, as well as many anti-heroes, to be considered by some to be more of a"badass" than most heroes. This allows the writing or piece of creativity to be able to reach an audience not normally accessible by a writing that would focus on a hero. These qualities also garner anti-heroes a good deal of dislike by fans of the more seen protagonist type: hero.

                 Other Anti- heroes of note include Marvel's Deadpool and DC's The

Redhood, the actions of which harken back to their predecessor.

         

            Heroes:

                The hero variety of protagonist needs much less explaining than that of the anti-hero due to the popularity of such a protagonist in many forms of literature and media. Heroes allow writers to explore the character and struggles of that of someone who can be held to a higher standard and who can be an idol who many can look up to or wish to be. 

                 The hero counterpart (some would say carbon copy or inspiration) of Grettir can arguably be seen as the well known hero Beowulf.

                 Beowulf makes the classification of hero the way many can be seen to do, by the reason of his altruistic actions. He does the heroic thing for the sole purpose of doing the right thing and helping people. The actions of Beowulf and similar heroes  when not doing their heroic actions are generally law abiding, altruistic, and honorable. These actions, what the hero does during the down time when not helping people as well as how they help, are what set them apart from anti heroes. A hero will always be a stand up person as long as they can manage it. An anti-hero will do whatever they please. Other heroes of note include Marvel's Spiderman and DC's Nightwing.

                The choice of a writer to explore their created worlds through the eyes and minds of either a hero or an anti-hero can change the entire course of the story and the reception of the writing or whatever the writing is contributing to.

Why a modern day viking interpretation could kick a contemporary vikings ass

Vikings today are depicted as six foot four muscle-bound bearded monstrosities that cleave through armor like it isnt there, and wield many gilt and otherwise esoteric forms of weaponry. Not much is seen out of them besides action packed jump cuts in battle scenes, but thats OK. They can get by on that, because of their sheer cool factor. Unlike the heroes of the north implanted in the minds of the many, the average viking was a stunted man of no more than 5'8" on average, and they spent most of their time farming instead of slaying enemies by the thousands. Rather than flowing locks of blonde hair and tattoed savagery, out for gold and women, these men tilled the soil most of the time until they were forced to raid to sustain themselves. But I digress, and in further detail:

Weapons:
Vikings as appearing on the show typically have swords and axes of steel, not to mention a relative abundance of chain mail. There are no horned helmets in this itineration, but they can be found in many other modern works, notably the vikingesque Conan the Barbarian. This already puts a Mod (Modern viking) ahead of a Pes (Larping warrior peasant), as at best the Pes would have a padded gambeson, a spear or axe of iron, and a long knife called a seax. Steel isnt stronger than iron in terms of PSI applied, but it is vastly more flexible, allowing for blows taken to be absorbed by the blade rather than a possible shattering effect. The ranged weapons of the vikings, seen rarely for the Mod, are also much better than the Pes' version, as they display stylistic references to the recurve bows of the east, which allows for a greater draw weight, hence more power, from a smaller bow. Old vikings used longbows or shortbows with literally 0 stylistic properties of the recurve, and suffer for it in terms of range and penetration. The gambeson was very effective against cutting blows and stopping arrows, and remained in use for several centuries after its initial appearance, but it would stand no chance at stopping a steel axe or a shaft from a bow with a 200 pound draw weight and stylistically recurved influences, whereas the chain mail of TV vikings is proof againt all blows. Also, there are no itinerations of past vikings with horned helms, so they lose on that too.

Physicality:
Modern vikings, namely the ones on the TV show Vikings, are massive. They each top 6'4" with no problems at all, and seem to be the nearest thing man has birthed to an oak tree. This is because off the set, they each have physical trainers to hone their bodies to the max, and dieticians to help them eat correctly and maintain their physique. They recieve training in martial arts, and if something is truly dangerous, they can call upon an equally strapping stuntman to be the strapping viking for them. The Pes, as you will recall, does none of this. They plow stony fields, and build houses, and sometimes train for war, but most of thetime they are just trying to scratch a living from the ground. Dietarily, there was a lot of fish, dairy, and wheat, which destroy muscle mass by being, in order, Omega 3 fatty acids, literally distilled lard, and just a ton of carbs and gluten. When training for a fight, this diet is hardly adviseable. It might have made the average viking bigger than the average Brit, but the Brits of the time were tiny anyways. In short, there is no reason why a modern day viking couldnt absolutely RKO a Pes 6 ways to sunday barehanded.

Technology/Social:
Vikings in the modern day interpretation live well. They have invented basic compasses and astrolabes, allowing them to navigate where they will, and their farms, though seldom seen, have no problem feeding everyone AND the dogs. There are regular congregations in the high kings hall for drunken carousing, and the meat and mead always flow. They travel by seamless ships, each plank flush with its brothers, and there is freedom in the land, with landed nobles rarely asking for service. In the olden days, the Pes would have spent most of his life farming, with carousing chances coming but rarely. The soil is so poor that sustenance farming was the only tenable option, and raids were largely responsible for the import of food as well as riches, not just riches. The king might have had mead regularly, and meat, but he would have likely been the only one aside from particularly wealthy nobles, as meat and mead were expensive. They ships were not flush built, but clinker, with each plank jutting out a little more from its brethren, which at the time was strong but nothing compared to a modern idea of the ship. They had invented no astrolabe or compass, and had to take the technology via raids. Vikings in the modern era might as well be space pirates compared to the Pes.

I am not going to go into the various types of viking warrior, and i do not mention berserks, but on an average day, with an average warrior from the modern interpretation and a contemporary fighter, the modern day would win every. Single. Time. 

Loki's Quarrel Made to be a Joking Quarrel

The Poetic Edda speaks of gods and goddesses and their strength and power but when it really comes down to it, is what they are fighting for really worth all the trouble? Loki brings to light all the flaws the gods and goddesses have made at a dinner in the section of Loki’s quarrel. This is one of the first times when the doings of all the gods and goddesses is confronted, and they realize just how 

embarrassing their actions are. In the text Loki states, “You’re brave in your seat, but you won’t be doing that, Bragi the bench ornament! You go and fight, if you are so furious, the truly bold man doesn’t think twice.” (Larrington 83)

Loki calls out several other figures in the room whether or not they were friends to him in the past. Even the goddess Freyia which he in turn says to her “Be silent Freyia, you’re a witch and much imbued with malice, you were with your brother, all the cheerful gods surprised you, and then, Freyia, you farted.” (Larrington 86) In todays times we see people continually calling each other out on social media in a very personal manner to “start a fight”. Typically, even in this setting many people are hiding behind a computer screen and calling out insults to others in order to fire up a storm. Most cases today do not normally turn into an actual fight and simmer down over time.

Gifts of the High One

Hey! Nicole here (and welcome to my Ted talk). As a student in anthropology, I am automatically obligated to make my blog posts about famous anthropological theories and how they tie into Viking culture. Today, I’ll be talking about one of my favorite scholars—Marcel Mauss—and his concept of reciprocal exchange, also known as the theory of gift giving. To demonstrate this theory using cultural evidence, I’ll be referring to Sayings of the High One from the Poetic Edda to present my case. So, let’s get started!

Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) was a French sociologist whose theories greatly contributed to the field of anthropology. His ideas surrounding gift giving were largely based in empirical evidence obtained through ethnographic field work (essentially, a phenomenon where anthropologists visit a culture for a long time and record everything they see and experience). For Mauss, there is no such thing as a “free” gift. When you give a gift, you are actually beginning a long line of reciprocal exchange between you and the other person. There is a bond between the giver and the gift itself which cannot be easily separated—essentially, you are giving part of yourself away when you give someone something. Because of this, there is an obligation to give a gift in return, and a risk to losing social status or honor if the gift is not reciprocated.

While we can talk about the evidence Mauss uses to describe gift giving, we can see this concept reflected in Sayings of the High One as well, in multiple instances. To begin with, the poem talks about what one should give a guest when they enter from the cold or join the table for a meal. Fire, food, clothing, water, a friendly disposition… all of these things should be given to a guest upon arrival. This is because—if you were the traveler, would you not want these things given to you as well? The favor is expected to be returned or passed on wherever you go.

The poem goes on to say:

The greedy man, unless he guards against this tendency, will eat himself into lifelong trouble.

You could interpret this as “someone who does not give back will suffer the consequences.” This sort of attitude is seen again, with:

Cattle know when they ought to go home, and then they leave the pasture; but the foolish man never figures the measure of his own stomach.

And:

A man must go, he must not remain a guest always in one place; the loved man is loathed if he sits too long in someone else’s hall.

So a man is foolish if he takes too much—if he overstays his welcome, not knowing when to leave. No one is expected to give all the time. One must give back—if not to the individual, then to the community itself. Not only are you expected to give, but you are expected to receive, too, as seen in this stanza:

I never found a generous man, nor one so unstingy with food, that he wouldn’t accept what was given; or one so open-handed with possessions that he disliked a gift when offered.

So, we can see a pattern being followed here. These lines are pieces of wisdom Odin has intended to spread throughout the community—if you want to be a good man/woman, you will follow these guidelines. You will give to your guests, your neighbors, your friends, and they will give back to you and to others.

As mentioned before, Mauss described the gift as something the giver has invested part of their personhood into. Again, Sayings of the High One is supportive of this notion, as we can see here:

You know, if you’ve a friend whom you really trust and from whom you want nothing but good, you should mix your soul with his and exchange gifts, go and see him often.

Through exchanging gifts, you are mixing your soul with another’s. You are investing a part of your soul into the very gift that you are giving—you are giving part of yourself away, and they, in turn, will reciprocate because of the power and symbolism this gift holds. Perfect fit!

While this poem is riddled with lovely lines that reflect reciprocal exchange (talking of how generous and brave men live the best; how the miser always worries when he gets gifts, etc.), sadly, I must end this blog post before it gets to be too long. I will leave you with one last piece of wisdom:

With weapons and gifts friends should gladden one another, those which can be seen on them; mutual givers and receivers are friends for longest, if the friendship keeps going well. To his friend a man should be a friend and repay gifts with gifts; laughter men should accept with laughter but return deception for a lie.

Odin vs. Women: Warcraft Edition

  I would like to talk about the representation of Norse mythology within popular media, specifically about the character Odyn inte in the MMO World of Warcraft. In this interpretation of the character, his origins and backstory are very different, but his personality and primary motivation (to prevent/prepare for the end of the world) are still the same. As part of his plan to stop the apocalypse, he decides to create a flying fortress known as the Halls of Valor (Valhalla). He accomplishes this with the aid of a sorceress, his adopted daughter Helya. His next step is to figure out how to recruit his immortal army. Like the original Odin, Odyn is constantly in search of new knowledge, and he decides to take this opportunity to learn more about the nature of death. Odyn decides to create a task force of damned souls who do not fully exist in either the realm of the living or the dead, so that they can carry the spirits of the fallen to the Halls of Valor. Helya objects to this, and threatens to crash the Halls into the ground if he does not change his mind. Odyn immediately kills her and turns her into the first of the Val'kyr and uses magic to bind her to his will.

Odyn

  Helya does eventually manage to break free along with many other Val’kyr, and traps Odyn and his army inside the Halls. She then creates her own realm Helheim underwater, and dedicates the next few thousand years to murdering heroes and claiming their souls so that Odyn can’t have them. According to the Poetic Edda, Brunhild was imprisoned by Odin for killing his champion, and it seems that the main cause of his anger with women is that they make decisions and interfere with his plans. What is really interesting to me is that Helya incorporates aspects from a few different Norse goddesses, and all of them compete with Odin over control of the afterlife. Most obvious is the comparison to Hel, a death goddess who has dominion over those who die dishonorably, usually from sickness or old age. Like the Val’kyr, she is half dead and half alive. Next is Freyja/Freya, who receives half of the souls from battlefields, while the other half go to Odin. According to some sources, she is also the queen of the Valkyries, which fits with Helya being the original and most powerful Valkyrie. “Helya” also appears to be combination of “Hel” and “Freya”. Finally, Helya’s design and visual theme are mostly likely based off of Ran, a sea goddess who is associated with drowning. Ran carries a net which she uses to drag sailors into the water.

Helya

  After Helya’s rebellion, Odyn attempts to rewrite history by claiming that she was turned into a monster by her own magic, and then begged to work as a Valkyrie as part of her atonement.  At some point, a new Val’kyr queen shows up, named Eyir. Where she came from is currently unknown, but she is entirely loyal to Odyn and serves as a kind of proxy for him as the head of a religion which revolves around training shield-maidens to willingly become Val’kyr. She goes along with Odyn’s plans, including an assassination attempt on a woman named Sigryn, whom Odyn does not want to become the future queen of her people. This is based on a prophecy that she will either save her people or doom them forever, and he is unwilling to take that chance. She survives, and becomes ruler. There are a lot of similarities with Hela from Thor: Ragnarok. After helping to establish the kingdom, both become a threat to it and are imprisoned in some way. “Proud to have it, ashamed of how he got it.” – Hela, Thor: Ragnarok. 

The Halls of Valor

Bonus: Black Hymdall

https://wow.gamepedia.com/The_Legend_of_Odyn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A1n