Reading Against Sources
When the Nordic mythological sources were written down, Scandinavia had already undergone Christianization. This meant that those who recorded the material – such as Snorri Sturluson – worked within a Christian cultural and intellectual context. As Lindow (2001, pp. 2–36) points out, this means that the sources are not direct representations of pre-Christian belief, but rather products of a later period, shaped by different values, purposes, and interpretive frameworks. The issue is not only what was written down, but also how it was presented, and which aspects were emphasized or downplayed. Furthermore, because the material is to a large extent geographically limited to Iceland and focuses on mythological narratives rather than lived religious practice, there is no stable or complete picture to rely upon.
This awareness has influenced the way I read the sources. I do not believe it is possible or meaningful to read them as neutral or transparent texts; rather, they must be interpreted in relation to their context. This is where the concepts of reading “with the grain” and “against the grain” become relevant (Myscofski 2001). Reading “with the grain” means following the internal logic of the text and accepting its perspective, whereas reading “against the grain” means questioning that perspective, paying attention to what is absent, and analyzing which power structures may have shaped the presentation. This approach shows how texts often contain more than they were intended to convey, and how critical reading can reveal alternative layers of meaning.
A concrete example of this in relation to the Nordic sources is Snorri’s portrayal of Loki’s children – Fenrir, Jörmungandr, and Hel. In the framing narrative, where Gylfi/Gangleri converses with the disguised Æsir, their dangerous and destructive nature is emphasized. They are presented as threatening and, in some sense, “evil.” However, when one examines the actual mythological events that are described, a more complex picture emerges. The children themselves do not necessarily commit acts that can inherently be described as evil; rather, it is the gods’ reactions to them – binding Fenrir, casting Jörmungandr into the sea, and exiling Hel – that establish the framework through which they are understood. Drawing attention to this distinction between framing and content can be seen as a way of reading against the text’s “grain,” in which one does not simply accept the given interpretation but instead examines how that interpretation is constructed.
At the same time, there is a relevant critique of this type of reading. Reading “against the grain” carries the risk of projecting meanings onto the material that cannot actually be substantiated, and of allowing the analysis to reflect the reader’s own perspectives more than the content of the source itself. This criticism is important to take seriously. At the same time, a more literal reading also involves a form of interpretation, insofar as it accepts the text’s perspective without questioning its underlying assumptions. For me, therefore, the issue is not one of choosing between a “right” or “wrong” method, but rather of remaining aware of the conditions and limitations of interpretation.
In relation to this, I see a distinction between my own approach and more strictly reconstructionist approaches. The reconstructionist ambition to recreate historical practice as closely as possible can be valuable, but I feel that it sometimes tends to treat the sources as more stable and unambiguous than they actually are. In contrast, I try to maintain both an anchoring in the source material and an openness to interpretation. Rather than searching for exact answers, I use the sources as a form of orientation, where recurring patterns and themes become more important than detailed historical exactitude.
This method also resonates with my own practice and relationship to Loki. Because the sources are fragmentary and interpreted through other perspectives, it becomes difficult to rely on them alone as authoritative descriptions. At the same time, I feel that there is something in the material that remains meaningful – not as fixed truths, but as traces, patterns, and expressions that can be related to personal experience. Reading both with and against the sources makes it possible to keep this tension alive: to take the material seriously while also acknowledging its limitations.
I arrived at this position by first engaging with the problems surrounding the source material that scholars such as Lindow have highlighted, and then reflecting on how different ways of reading influence what appears possible to understand. In combination with the articles dealing with “reading against the grain,” this has given me an approach that does not seek certainty in the material, but instead works with its uncertainty. It is a method that suits me because it allows for a practice that is both critically grounded and open to experience, without reducing the complexity of either the sources themselves or my own experiences.
Sources
Lindow, J. (2001) Norse mythology: a guide to gods, heroes, rituals, and beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford scholarship online). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195153828.001.0001.
Myscofski, C.A. (2001) ‘Against The Grain: Learning And Teaching’, Honorees for Teaching Excellence [Preprint]. Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/teaching_excellence/4.