The book reads differently to me now.
It appears most unlikely that the book was all written in the author's head before putting pen to paper. It was three books, not one, The Bridal Wreath was published in 1920, The Mistress of Husaby in 1921, and The Cross in 1922. It seems infinitely more likely that the books were written at different times, corresponding to their publishing dates, rather than that Sigrid Undset wrote them all at once and parceled them out to publishers each year.
It is as if Miss Undset, unsure of the dominant theme, moved off sexual power in The Bridal Wreath and The Mistress of Husaby and, in The Cross, settled on the Jante's Law constellation of sub-themes: honor/duty/debt/memory/forgetting/grudgeholding. That would explain The Cross reading differently to me than the previous two books. It would explain the, to me, clear change of theme. It would mean the trilogy did not emerge full blown from Miss Undset's head as from Zeus.
How was the correct Medieval Norwegian kinsman to properly live his life? That is the question that begs answer in the remaining 27% of the book and I'll be a sonofabitch if I can see how that question is going to answered, for there is this *weird* Norwegian inversion that takes place with duty and debt and the others. What was the correct Medieval Norwegian knightly kinsman to do when this man who lived a life without consequence stole his bride-to-be from him and Simon confronted him, both armed, in the Oslo whorehouse? What he did was appeal successfully to Erlend's honor not to besmirch the honor of Lavrans and avoid what seemed certain bloodshed between the two. Simon had not acted correctly by Northern lights in that honorable action. He had shown Erlend the lesser of the two men and himself superior to both he and Kristin, and had bitterly shamed the psyche of Kristin. What it have been correct for Simon to sword fight with Erlend and, no doubt, be killed by Erlend in that house of ill repute?
What should Simon have done when his brother-in-law got arrested and condemned to death? If, do what Simon Darre did and move heaven and earth--and threaten the King for good measure--to get his kinsman released, Simon thereby did not correctly discharge a duty, rather he incurred a debt. If, fuck-Erlend-Nikulausson-let-his-ass-rot in gaol, would that have been "correct" behavior? We'll never know because Simon saved Erlend's life.
What should Kristin have done when Simon's son was dying? What she did was take a trip into the Twilight Zone--I cannot remember reading a more bizarre passage in any book--and saved baby Andres' life. But in these Medieval Norwegians minds Kristin thereby had not done something miraculously good for Simon, but rather something devilishly sinister to Simon. She had made him his thral. What. The. Fuck. I 'on't know Pilgrim but that's how those bastards thought.
I completed The Cross, Kinship's Dues, and have started The Cross, Debtors. Miss Undset definitely decided mid-work to give Simon Darre a co-leading role with Kristin. Miss Undset decided to insert Simon ahead of and in place of Erlend. Simon steps forward ahead of Erlend. This thrusting forward of Simon began in the last part of The Mistress of Husaby, Erlend Nikulausson.
This is odd to me. It is as if Miss Undset was not satisfied with Erlend's character development. Or, the more I read, the more it appears Erlend-the-Reckless was changed by Miss Undset into the one normal character in the book. Miss Undset had Simon stay the executioner's sword in Erlend Nikulausson. That scene seems to have sent Miss Undset on her change of course. Simon incurred a debt for the privilege; Simon developed hitherto ignored feelings of deep love for Kristin. Saving Erlend is actually the second major obligation--second major debt incurred--that Simon has taken on. Much earlier he made the mistake of being the better man with Erlend and Kristin in the bordello. Now this. Man, you do these Norwegians a good turn, you live to regret it. It is Simon's duty now to have Kristin and Erlend see him weak. It is so fucked up.
Kristin gets even with Simon when she grave robs her infant brother and cures Simon's youngest son. It was not a good deed intended. It was a deed to get even. Simon, not physically preventing Kristin from entering the Twilight Zone is seen as weak by Kristin. "'Would you that I should not go--?' And he had not been man enought to answer" Now Erlend must have his revenge. He gets it. Or Miss Undset gives it to him. Erlend is oblivious and it is not clear if Erlend is aware of Miss Undset's gift.
Erlend and Simon ride to a meeting with some of their deceased father-in-law's tenants. Everybody is armed. Erlend reads Lavran's will and interprets it, by all that the reader is told, faithfully and also with utter nonchalance. But as the meeting breaks up one of the farmers says something sarcastic about Lavrans to Simon. A sword fight ensues--Man, must Hollywood have loved this book!--Simon kills a man and is beset by the others. Erlend comes to Simon's rescue like Errol Flynn and with the same easy grace and sure-handedness with the sword as with reading Lavrans will and he and Simon escape. Simon is deeply troubled by the killing but to Erlend the whole thing was one big hoot. Simon knows right away that Erlend has shown himself the better man, that he, Simon, has therefore discharged his "debt" for saving Erlend's life, but Erlend is oblivious. The gall rises in Simon and after awhile of riding in silence Simon can't keep it down. He pours it out not all at once but in splashes and Erlend gets that something has changed and says, "Do you hate me, Simon?" in astonishment. "I cannot bear to meet you any more!" Simon answers and rides off leaving Erlend sitting there dumbfounded.
Simon has not forgotten--that Kristin was once his betrothed, Erlend has forgotten; Kristin has not forgotten that she rejected Simon for Erlend, Simon has not forgotten, Erlend has forgotten; Simon has not forgotten that he was the better man in the Oslo whorehouse, that he, twenty years later, saved Erlend's life; Kristin has not forgotten either; Erlend has forgotten. Simon and Kristin, and for that matter Ragnfrid, has not forgotten, they carry these inverted begrudgements forever. Erlend is the normal one. He forgets, he doesn't hold grudges. Sigrid Undset is painting Erlend Nikulausson with the deep oil of sensible normalcy where she had previously painting him in unsubstantial pastel water colors. Miss Undset has changed her book.
It appears most unlikely that the book was all written in the author's head before putting pen to paper. It was three books, not one, The Bridal Wreath was published in 1920, The Mistress of Husaby in 1921, and The Cross in 1922. It seems infinitely more likely that the books were written at different times, corresponding to their publishing dates, rather than that Sigrid Undset wrote them all at once and parceled them out to publishers each year.
It is as if Miss Undset, unsure of the dominant theme, moved off sexual power in The Bridal Wreath and The Mistress of Husaby and, in The Cross, settled on the Jante's Law constellation of sub-themes: honor/duty/debt/memory/forgetting/grudgeholding. That would explain The Cross reading differently to me than the previous two books. It would explain the, to me, clear change of theme. It would mean the trilogy did not emerge full blown from Miss Undset's head as from Zeus.
How was the correct Medieval Norwegian kinsman to properly live his life? That is the question that begs answer in the remaining 27% of the book and I'll be a sonofabitch if I can see how that question is going to answered, for there is this *weird* Norwegian inversion that takes place with duty and debt and the others. What was the correct Medieval Norwegian knightly kinsman to do when this man who lived a life without consequence stole his bride-to-be from him and Simon confronted him, both armed, in the Oslo whorehouse? What he did was appeal successfully to Erlend's honor not to besmirch the honor of Lavrans and avoid what seemed certain bloodshed between the two. Simon had not acted correctly by Northern lights in that honorable action. He had shown Erlend the lesser of the two men and himself superior to both he and Kristin, and had bitterly shamed the psyche of Kristin. What it have been correct for Simon to sword fight with Erlend and, no doubt, be killed by Erlend in that house of ill repute?
What should Simon have done when his brother-in-law got arrested and condemned to death? If, do what Simon Darre did and move heaven and earth--and threaten the King for good measure--to get his kinsman released, Simon thereby did not correctly discharge a duty, rather he incurred a debt. If, fuck-Erlend-Nikulausson-let-his-ass-rot in gaol, would that have been "correct" behavior? We'll never know because Simon saved Erlend's life.
What should Kristin have done when Simon's son was dying? What she did was take a trip into the Twilight Zone--I cannot remember reading a more bizarre passage in any book--and saved baby Andres' life. But in these Medieval Norwegians minds Kristin thereby had not done something miraculously good for Simon, but rather something devilishly sinister to Simon. She had made him his thral. What. The. Fuck. I 'on't know Pilgrim but that's how those bastards thought.
I completed The Cross, Kinship's Dues, and have started The Cross, Debtors. Miss Undset definitely decided mid-work to give Simon Darre a co-leading role with Kristin. Miss Undset decided to insert Simon ahead of and in place of Erlend. Simon steps forward ahead of Erlend. This thrusting forward of Simon began in the last part of The Mistress of Husaby, Erlend Nikulausson.
This is odd to me. It is as if Miss Undset was not satisfied with Erlend's character development. Or, the more I read, the more it appears Erlend-the-Reckless was changed by Miss Undset into the one normal character in the book. Miss Undset had Simon stay the executioner's sword in Erlend Nikulausson. That scene seems to have sent Miss Undset on her change of course. Simon incurred a debt for the privilege; Simon developed hitherto ignored feelings of deep love for Kristin. Saving Erlend is actually the second major obligation--second major debt incurred--that Simon has taken on. Much earlier he made the mistake of being the better man with Erlend and Kristin in the bordello. Now this. Man, you do these Norwegians a good turn, you live to regret it. It is Simon's duty now to have Kristin and Erlend see him weak. It is so fucked up.
Kristin gets even with Simon when she grave robs her infant brother and cures Simon's youngest son. It was not a good deed intended. It was a deed to get even. Simon, not physically preventing Kristin from entering the Twilight Zone is seen as weak by Kristin. "'Would you that I should not go--?' And he had not been man enought to answer" Now Erlend must have his revenge. He gets it. Or Miss Undset gives it to him. Erlend is oblivious and it is not clear if Erlend is aware of Miss Undset's gift.
Erlend and Simon ride to a meeting with some of their deceased father-in-law's tenants. Everybody is armed. Erlend reads Lavran's will and interprets it, by all that the reader is told, faithfully and also with utter nonchalance. But as the meeting breaks up one of the farmers says something sarcastic about Lavrans to Simon. A sword fight ensues--Man, must Hollywood have loved this book!--Simon kills a man and is beset by the others. Erlend comes to Simon's rescue like Errol Flynn and with the same easy grace and sure-handedness with the sword as with reading Lavrans will and he and Simon escape. Simon is deeply troubled by the killing but to Erlend the whole thing was one big hoot. Simon knows right away that Erlend has shown himself the better man, that he, Simon, has therefore discharged his "debt" for saving Erlend's life, but Erlend is oblivious. The gall rises in Simon and after awhile of riding in silence Simon can't keep it down. He pours it out not all at once but in splashes and Erlend gets that something has changed and says, "Do you hate me, Simon?" in astonishment. "I cannot bear to meet you any more!" Simon answers and rides off leaving Erlend sitting there dumbfounded.
Simon has not forgotten--that Kristin was once his betrothed, Erlend has forgotten; Kristin has not forgotten that she rejected Simon for Erlend, Simon has not forgotten, Erlend has forgotten; Simon has not forgotten that he was the better man in the Oslo whorehouse, that he, twenty years later, saved Erlend's life; Kristin has not forgotten either; Erlend has forgotten. Simon and Kristin, and for that matter Ragnfrid, has not forgotten, they carry these inverted begrudgements forever. Erlend is the normal one. He forgets, he doesn't hold grudges. Sigrid Undset is painting Erlend Nikulausson with the deep oil of sensible normalcy where she had previously painting him in unsubstantial pastel water colors. Miss Undset has changed her book.
