Kristin Lavransdatter: Volume I, Part 1

Post your comments on this part here.

Eng.: Jorundgaard
Norw.: Jørundgaard

I've just started and from the outset what I'm finding difficult is the names - I don't know how to pronounce them in my head (not being familiar with Scandanavian writing). It makes me stumble a bit as I read but give me a few chapters and my own, awful pronunciation will take over!

Is this a problem non-English speakers have when reading books in English, I wonder? I don't have problems with languages I'm familiar with mind you, I think it's because this is new...

I read English nearly as good as German (although every native speaker would probably spot my accent from miles away), so no problems with English names (not even with things like Leicester or Arkansas ;-) ). I did 2 semesters of Norwegian and grew up on the Danish border, so I can generally pronounce scandinavian names and words correctly, and know a lot of (geogr.) terminology (like -gård, --foss, -sjø etc.).
Now, Chinese or Swahili...-there you have me! Or even Finnish or Latvian...

The double 'a' in Norwegian is an old form for the modern 'å'

'aa' = 'å'
'aa' (or 'å') is pronounced like 'aw' in 'saw'

'ø' is pronounced like the 'u' in 'run'

'æ' (i don't know yet if it is used in the English edition) is pronounced like the 'a' in 'gang'

These are the three extra(ordinary) vowels in Norwegian.

I might explain the pronunciation of some of the names for you using phonetics and/or compare them to English letters, but I cannot promise to use very much of my time doing this. I have to read Kristin Lavransdatter myself as well, you know.

Just ask me, I'll try to explain :-)

When I read works that have a lot of foreign sounding names that I have trouble pronouncing I just assign nicknames to the character, maybe related to what they do, or just simply guy 1 or guy 2, etc. or I just skip trying to pronounce it in my head altogether and just recognize the name by its shape and go on.

Thanks kjellika for the vowels, that's going to help. I find once I know how to pronounce non-english characters/vowels, it doesn't take me long to train myself to do it without thinking!

kjellika: "'ø' is pronounced like the 'u' in 'run'"

Are you sure? If it is anything like the German ö or the Danish ø, it's not very close to the u in "run".
Any english native-speaker correct me please, but I think the u in run is transcribed as ɐ in IPA notation (look at Wiki for word examples).
ø would be ø ;-) in IPA notation (look at link for word example).

Wiki maintains that a New Zealander saying "bird" actually uses the ø : "bø:d" :-)

kjellika:
'ø' is pronounced like the 'u' in 'run'

Is it really? Either my Norwegian or my English pronounciation differs significantly from yours, but I would have said a Norwigian "ø" is rather pronounced somewhat similarly to the "u" in "hurt", though more in the front of the mouth, and sometimes shorter in length, depending on the word where it appears.

GirlfromIpanema was faster than I.

No, I'm not sure, maybe I pronounce the English word 'run' wrong with a Norwegian 'ø'-sound.
And I use ø (long vowel) saying "bird": "bø:d".
Saying "run" I use a short vowel: "røn", (or to spell it in Norwegian: rønn.).
I imagine that the Norwegian 'ø' isn't exactly equal to the 'u' in 'run', and I see that 'bird' is a better example if we aren't going to use IPA notation.

Language is interesting and exciting, don't you think?
I hope most of the names in KL are manageable to you.

Well,
I hope the messages don't get hurt as they crash...

(And the 'J' in 'Jørundgaard' is not pronounced 'dzj', but like the sound in 'you' (ju:))

My copy just arrived from Amazon via brown...

A suggestion regarding characters, places, etc.: perhaps we could also use this groupread to make an effort to fill in and expand the Common Knowledge section of the LT record for Kristin Lavransdatter.

It's pretty empty right now.

#12 Great idea, cornerhouse! I went ahead and entered some info inte to Swedish LT site, but now I'm confused. I was entering the original date of publication, but the information in my copy of vol. III "Korset" (The Cross) seems wrong. This particular book was printed in Kristiania (Oslo) in 1922, but claims copyright from 1920. Shouldn't that be 1922? The first two books have copyrights from 1920 and 1921 respectively. All information I found on the web also says book three was written in 1922. (They could of course all just be due to googling and spreading of an original incorrect piece of information). But the trilogy was written in order, wasn't it? And the dates of original publication should really be 1920, 1921, and 1922 respectively? Or am I wrong?

Good idea cornerhouse.

And now lets move to the u in Jørundgaard... *eg*
I believe it is pronounced like the u in french "tu". Is that correct, Kjell?
/jø:rʏn'gɔ:rd/... (not sure about the second r, is it pronounced?).
When I started learning Norwegian the first thing I had to learn was that the written word was completely different from the way it was pronounced... :-D
I found a section on Norwegian Phonology at Wikipedia, which might be helpful in transcribing/explaining. One can click on every symbol, go to its page and find examples in other languages, or click through from there to your language's Wiki, and find examples in your language (if the sound exists in your language).

I agree, languages are exiting! After mastering grammar, next step is pronounciation... ("What, there is a difference between cat and cut?!" - "There is a difference between Maße and Masse?"). Fun! (Unless you find yourself with both feet in your mouth after a weird mispronounciation...)

I just took a look at the covers of KL in its various editions. There are some really pretty ones in terms of design, and a few really kitschy ones, too!

#15 Maybe Kjell is away reading a book or so ... So I'll jump in and try to answer your question. Then Kjell can clarify or correct me if I'm wrong. The French "u" in "tu" is more like a short "y" in Norwegian. The Norwegian letter "u" is pronounced a little bit further back in the mouth and with the lips more rounded. To many foreign speakers this is the most difficult vowel to master, as the sound doesn't exist in other languages than Norwegian, Swedish, and Icelandic. Thus it is very difficult to give examples.

I've tried to google for sound-files on-line, but it has proven rather difficult. The best I found was http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/ipa/no/ipachart_no_vowels.html . You are supposed to be able to click the different signs and hear their sounds, but it lists the phonetic signs rather than letters or words. Also, it doesn't work in my browser ...

Edit: Look at messages #38 & #40, plus maybe #32 for sound examples.

#!3
In The History of Norwegian Literature ("Norges litteraturhistorie", vol. 4, p. 429), Per Amdam writes (my translation):
She was the mother of her children during the day-time, during the night-time she wrote her great novel trilogy: "Kransen" (1920), "Husfrue" (1921), "Korset" (1922).

And in the book "Norske førsteutgaver" ('Norwegian first editions'):
1920: Kristin Lavransdatter. Kransen. Aschehoug (publishing house)
1921: Kristin Lavransdatter. Husfrue. Aschehoug.
1922: Kristin Lavransdatter. Korset. Aschehoug.

I consider "Norske førsteutgaver" and "Norges litteraturhistorie" to be most reliable sources.

#15
Jørundgaard: the u is pronounced approximately like the u in French "tu", and the second 'r' is pronounced, but not the second 'd' (I don't, at least).
By the way: I imagine you'll never learn or use a foreign language the same way as your native language.

I've just finished the first chapter of this part, and I do like (seven years old) Kristin and her father, and also Undset's ability to describe the landscape. I guess there will be much more of it during the next appr. 1,100 pages.

I cannot hear it, either... -But I took another look at the norwegian IPA codes, and they have /ʉ/ for "u". So that is probably the sound you describe. /ʏ/ is indeed the french "u" (I didn't check too deeply...).
Another try: /'jø:rʉngɔ:rd/ (adding the stress symbol).
Back to reading "North and South" (E. Gaskell) to finish in time for Kristin!

#17
Annix, I think you're quite right about the Swedish and Norwegian u, and in #18 I use the word "approximately".

Thank you Kjell for checking up the publication dates! Then it is as I expected, and the "1920 copyright" in my book is probably just a misprint.

Dropping your d's? :-) Well, my idea of letting the r in gaard drop probably comes from my own northern German dialect (we pronounce only very few r's intra-word, they mostly end up as /ɐ/ (an a-sound)). Good for learning English, bad for almost everything else: I found myself repeatedly pronouncing "Jørundgaard" without the second r...

I'm interested in hearing from the Europeans in the group how well-known Kristin Lavransdatter is. I confess that I hadn't heard of it until I joined this group, even though I've studied and read a lot of (mainly English and American) literature. Anyway, I'm glad to expand my horizons and am enjoying the book so far. I'm on to Part 2 tomorrow.

I'll just add a quote by Sigrid Undset:
"Men menneskenes hjerter forandres aldeles ikke i alle dager"
('But the hearts of man will not at all change throughout times')

final sentence in:
"Fortellinger om kong Arthur og ridderne av det runde bord" (1915)
('Stories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table')

>23 erkie2007: Interesting question erkie!
I live in Sweden where we consider Norway our brother country and a very good neighbor and with a similar culture to our own. The focus of the literary scenes in the Scandinavian countries do not always overlap, though, and even rather popular authors from the neighbor countries are not always translated, nor are they usually availabe in the original language in physical bookstores, due to the limited space, only in on-line shops. Well, that's just some background.

I would think most people know about Sigrid Undset and Kristin Lavransdatter in Sweden. I've "always" been aware of the book myself. At the moment it is out of print in Swedish, though. I just checked. It probably has been for decades. (That goes for most books here, unfortunately. What? You're interested in something published more than three - four years ago? Tough luck!)

I went to check how much was written about Undset in my old high school text book in literature history. Not a single line in 550+ pages! I'm highly surprised! I went on to check web occurence in Swedish sites. Googling "Sigrid Undset", in Swedish only, found 8,380 pages. "Kristin Lavransdotter" (Sw. spelling) returned 12,300 pages in Swedish, and the Norwegian spelling added 1,740 pages in Swedish. That is for a native Swedish speaking population of roughly 9,000,000 people in Sweden and Finland. For comparison I googled some well-known authors. Here are the numbers:
William Shakespeare: 55,600
August Strindberg: 146,000
Selma Lagerlöf: 168,000
Knut Hamsun: 8,020
Henrik Ibsen: 18,400
Liza Marklund (contemporary crime fiction best-seller): 141,000
(Only two touchstones found...)

I also found out that the movie Kristin Lavransdatter (1995) was seen by 55,000 people in the theaters in Sweden. It has then been broadcast on Swedish TV on several occations.

It would be interesting to hear thoughts on Undset's fame, or lack thereof, from other corners of the globe!

#23,25
Now there are a few more persons knowing about Sigrid Undset and Kristin Lavransdatter.
And I guess (hope) most of the Norwegians do, and that children and young people are taught about her at school.

I must confess that I 'discovered' Kristin Lavransdatter here, in the US, rather than in my native Italy.
A friend of mine insisted that I had to read it and I am happy I did.
I was already acquainted with Selma Lagerlof (sorry, I don't know how to put the umlaut above the 'o' of Lagerlof), as I had read The Story of Gosta Berling as a young girl. I know that Selma was Swedish and Sigrid Norwegian, and I would never think of the two countries as of the same thing, but both belong to Scandinavian literature, which is to me a fascinating subject which I - much to my shame - don't know much about.
I recently read Dina's Book by Herbjorg Wassmo and thoroughly enjoyed it.
At any rate, what I meant to say is that I would be surprised if Kristin Lavransdatter were widely known in Italy, and that is a real shame.

I hadn't heard of it until this group read but I'm really glad that we're reading it. I've just finished Part 1. I admit it took a little while to get into it - I think it was purely that it was stylistically very different from the other classic European novels I've read, not bad just different. Once I got my head into the same place as Undset, I was captivated. Such a racing story - highs, lows, historical information. I find I have to drag myself back from medieval Norway to the present day every time I put it down.

As a main protagonist, I find Kristin an interesting and well-drawn character and I love how this book is steeped in information about life in that time. I find particularly interesting the balance religion and superstition has reached in this society - the fact that Lavrans can be so pious but also so believing of the Elf Maiden - and how religion is used as a shield against the evils of these characters of superstition. Also interesting is the persecution of someone viewed as a 'witch', who is rather a healer with a knowledge of natural remedies (it is obviously acceptable that male priests can have knowledge of treatments ...) - reminiscent of the persecution of women in England in past centuries.

For those trying to spell scandinavian words (or any non-english central and west european letters, really) correctly: Here is a list for European languages. To write a character, press and hold /ALT/ and key in the number on the number block to the right, not the keys above the letters, including the leading zero.

ä /ALT/ + 0228
å /ALT/ + 0229
æ /ALT/ + 0230
ð /ALT/ + 0240
ö /ALT/ + 0246
ø /ALT/ + 0248

You can also write useful things like ¿ or ¼ this way. :-)

Sigrid Undset wasn't part of the school curriculum here (Germany). We didn't have general courses like "Literature" or "European lit.", just "German", "English", "French", etc. In these classes, authors from these languages were read.
I found out about Sigrid Undset through the bookshelf of my grandmother, I think (she was born in Northern Schleswig before 1900, and grew up with German and Danish). Libraries around here typically have a number of classical and modern scandinavian authors (and we can get books from southern Denmark via interlibrary loan).

I found "Kristin Lavransdatter" at the local library when I was at school. Today, her books aren't readily available in all libraries...--a declining interest in "older books" probably made the librarians cull them. You can get them via regional interlibrary loan though (just takes two or three days).

Started the book this weekend. The opening scenes reminded me a bit of Heidi. Very enjoyable so far. Particularly enjoying the interesting characters, the interaction of Catholics and pagans, and the sense of place.

##2, 4, 7, 9-10, 15, and 17-20
Returning to the interesting topic of Norwegian pronunciation for a little while, I happened to stumble across a page at the Nordic Language Council's site where you can read and listen to a short passage (Luke 7:11-13 from the Bible) in different Nordic languages.
http://www.nordisk-sprakrad.no/nsr_ligheter.htm
The Norwegian examples would be the "Norsk 1: Bokmål" and "Norsk 2: Nynorsk." They represent the two different official variants of Norwegian. I think most language sounds are represented in the texts, and if you're able to follow along in the written text, you should be able to hear how they are supposed to be pronounced.

In my browser I had to open two different windows/tabs to be able to see the text while it was being read, as clicking the sound link made the page go black. So I used one tab for the sound and one for the written text.

I also thought this would be a good time for me to brush up on Scandinavian history. The national boarders have shiftet back and forth quite a bit during the centuries, so I found the following site with chronological series of maps a rather illuminating overview.
http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/norway.htm

I just found this string, and will probably end up more of a lurker than a participant because of time constraints. But I love Kristin Lavransdatter and have read it twice -- in high school and in the 80s when the Bantam pb came out. The Nobel site for Undset is at: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1928/

#12,13,14
I'll try to expand the Common Knowledge section of Kristin Lavransdatter later on. As cornerhouse says, it's rather empty now, alas.

#33,34
Thanks for the links to interesting web-sites. Even to me - as a Norwegian - they are quite useful.

I finished part 1 (in Norwegian) yesterday, and today I've been using a couple of hours "studying" the English version to learn a little about the translation (by Tiina Nunnally) and it seems to me that it is excellent and that Nunnally has done a really great job.
I guess the notes are useful to English readers (and to others, like me) and my edition (Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition) has got an introduction by Brad Leithauser, which is quite informative. As the story takes place in the Middle Ages (14th century) there are some old words being curious and unknown to nowadays Norwegians, but fortunately most of them are explained in the Norwegian edition.

I think klarusu has written a brief and adequate review of part 1 (#28).
I feel I know the (main) characters quite well already, and I'm looking forward to see what happens to Kristin when she arrives at the Nonneseter (written with an 'æ' (Nonnesæter) in the Norwegian edition) and what she thinks about it. I'm not sure if she will stay.
I felt really sorry for Kristin when she was assaulted by Bentein Prestesøn (= 'priest's son') and even more when Arne Gyrdsøn (Kristin's step-brother) was killed by him. And what about Inga (Arne's mother) accusing Kristin for having seduced both Arne and Bentein and made Bentein kill Arne? I don't like Inga very much right now! Although I'm able to understand her.
Lavrans is a fine, decent and upright father, don't you think? He seems to support and believe in his daughter no matter what's told about her by telltales and gossips.

I am so glad I decided to read this book. Part I was a good introduction. We moved quickly through Heidi's...I mean Kristin's youth...and now she's off to a convent for recovery from her trauma with the nasty Bentein. I liked Arne so much better than Simon and am sorry to see him written off, so to speak.

The jury is still out on Simon. At times he seems to be a Wally Cleaver type...just a little too good to be true. For our European LTers and our youngest readers, W.C. was a phony, pandering character on Leave It To Beaver...an old American situation comedy. I hope I'm wrong about Simon. Did anyone else think he minimized Kristin's assault to the point of belittling her experience?

#15 GirlFromImpanema - I'm slow to understand, plus I only began reading day before yesterday. I don't know how to type the Norwegian characters, but Jorungaard is being pronounced (approximately) "EWER-run-guard". Am I even close? I'm pronouncing the "r" with the first syllable, not the second.

My tongue feels tied in knots when I try to pronounce all the consonants some of these words have, then you tell me that the pronounciation isn't close to the spelling? I wanted to cry out loud! I want my mental pronounciaton be correct, so that if I ever hear the spoken word, I'll recognize it. I am the typical uni-lingual American. I've never tried to learn another language, but I want to at least to get a feel for the sound and basics of the language when I see non-English words in print. You don't know what an amazing thing is it to have a fluent speaker to ask for help!

I'm only half way through part 1, but am beginning to feel comfortable with the characters and setting - and the words are at least starting to look familiar! And I've stopped whispering the words and am now reading silently (and more quickly). I've got an old edition - probably a very early translation - so even the English was a little difficult in the beginning!

I'd never heard of this book before now, but am looking forward to reading, and enjoying, all 3 volumes.

#37 It's difficult to transcribe Norwegian into English, but I'll have a go at it anyway :-) Something like Yer-un-gore might get you in the right neighborhood. The u-sound in the second syllable is not like in English, though, and the r:s are "rolling" (in most Norwegian dialects at least).

I finally found a webpage where you can listen to the letters of the Norwegian alphabet!
http://abc.cappelen.no/c202563/sammendrag/vis.html?strukt_tid=202563

If you click on the letters you will see a number of pictures of nouns starting with that letter and if you click the pictures the word is read out loud. Hopefully that helps!
So let's try to work our way through "Jørundgård"! To hear the J in the beginning you could click and listen to any of the words starting with a J. For the remaining part of the first syllable you could click the door under D. It's "dør" in Norwegian, so listen especially to the "ør"-part. For the second syllable you could click on the dog under "H". It's "hund" in Norwegian, so if you just ignore the h in the beginning you'll hear the pronunciation of that part. For the "gård"-part finally, the g is easy (as in English "go") and for the rest you could click the marten (mår) under M.

Actually Norwegian pronounciation is fairly regular – according to the Norwegian alphabet. I'd say a lot more so than English where the same sound often can be spelled in many more different ways.

#38 What fun that is! Rolling R's are totally foreign to my tongue. I felt like I could hear the sounds and words better than say them. It felt like all the sounds came from right behind my teeth, and that my jaw was totally rigid. Maybe common when sounding out new word sounds? I only wish your site had the words spelled out, so I could match up letters with sounds. Thanks so much for the help!

#39 You're right that you have to use a different set of muscles when you speak Norwegian. It is spoken much more in the front of the mouth than English.

I'm being extremely nice today, so here is the list of words appearing at the site above. I hope I got the spelling right, otherwise Kjell will have to correct me.

A
cucumber agurk
ambulance ambulanse
pineapple ananas
orange appelsin

B
banana banan
car bil
pencil blyant
book bok
fire engine brannbil
bus buss
berries bær
bell bjelle
harebell blåklokke

C
cowboy cowboy (irregular spelling/pronunciation as it is an English loan word)
cola cola

D
dalmatian dalmatiner
dinosaur dinosaur
kite drage
grapes druer
dove/pigeon due
table cloth duk
dolls dukker
door dør

E
squirrel ekorn
elephant elefant
electric guitar elgitar
apple eple
apple pie eplepai
donkey esel

F
five fem
feather fjær
bat flaggermus
fly flue
foot fot
frog frosk
fruit tree frukttre
matches fyrstikker

G
fork gaffel
presents gaver
globe globus
spruce grantre
grasshopper gresshoppe
pig gris
carrots gulrøtter

H
rooster hane
witch heks
horse hest
horse shoe hestesko
cabbage hodekål
dog hund
house hus
wheat flour hvetemel
hen høne

I
Icecream Is

J
jacket jakke
hunter jeger
girl jente
yo-yo jojo
strawberries jordbær
strawberry jam jordbærsyltetøy
Christmas card julekort
Christmas tree juletre

K
piece of cake kakestykke
comb kam
rabbit kanin
cannon kanon
cat katt
love couple kjærestepar
clock klokke
clown klovn
coat kåpe

L
lamp lampe
truck lastebil
doctor lege
armchair lenestol
torch lommelykt
Lucia Lucia
knitted cap lue
lightning lyn
barn låve

M
man mann
lady bug marihøne
moped moped
wall mur
mouse mus
mosquito mygg
goal mål
moon måne
marten mår

N
nose nese
goblin nisse
number nine nitall
nuts nøtter

O
olives oliven
olive oil olivenolje
cheese ost

P
parrot papegøye
paper papir
umbrella paraply
peanuts peanøtter
piano piano
hedgehog pinnsvin
potatoes poteter
pears pærer
sausage pølse

R
fox rev
ring ring
robot robot
rowboat robåt
rat rotte

S
saw sag
lettuce salat
sack/(back)pack sekk
shoe sko
smile smil
sun sol
sleeping bag sovepose
chair stol

T
roof tak
tooth tann
taxi taxi
tiger tiger
tomatoes tomater
tractor traktor
tree tre
troll troll
drum tromme

U
submarin ubåt
owl ugle
wolf ulv

V
waffle iron vaffeljern
puppet valp
vase vase
sink vask

Y
outer door ytterdør

Z
Zalo (it's a brand name)

Ø
ax øks
ear øre
eagle ørn
island øy
eyes øyne

Å
eel ål
eight åtte

I've entered Kjell's corrections from message #41 now.

Annix,

Thanks.
I really appreciate the job you've done, hoping it will help "foreigners" to learn a little more about the Norwegian (Scandinavian) language.

Ypperlig (=excellent)!!
:-)

(Edited to correct the following words):

strawberry jam jordbærsyltetøy (ending with 'y', not 'j')
love couple kjærestepar (you missed the first 'e')
knitted cap lue (there's no 'v' in this word)
number nine nitall (double 'l', which indicates that the 'a'-sound is short, I think it is long in Swedish and with one 'l' at the end)

which heks (your reading is right, no 'e' at the end)

Thanks for the corrections, Kjell! Norwegian spelling is tricky for a Swede, if you don't pay attention. I get fooled by my native language a lot and mix things up. You are right that "tall" is "tal" with a long "a" in Swedish, unless of course you are referring to the pine tree :-) in that case it is "tall" in Swedish as well. However, the figure or numeral nine is called "nia" in Swedish (as opposed to the value "nio.") "Niotal" in Swedish means "approximately nine." Oh, aren't there so many ways fellow Scandinavians can confuse each other!

Anyway, I'm halfway through part three of book one of KL right now, and I'll hopefully post some thoughts sooner or later. Probably later. It is rather time consuming for me to read in Norwegian, but apart from that I do find Undset's writing very easy and natural. And I'm learning all these useful 14th centuary words, like "aare" and "jertegn" :-)

I have started part I of book I, and the first thing I noticed was that the translators translated the names as well.
Lavrans Bjørgulfson = Lavrans Björgulfssohn
Jørundgaard = Jörundhof
Did any other translator to other languages do this (or even just "adjusted" the spelling a bit, like changing ø to ö).

Starts off like so many chapters in the bible, naming names and counting the forefathers :-).

#43 I know "Lavransdatter" is tranlated into "Lavransdotter" in Swedish translations. I think that is a good policy in that particular case as it is not a family name. It is more like a designation meaning "the daugher of Lavrans." I do not know if the adjustmens go as far as your examples, though, as I do not have access to a Swedish copy.

P.S. Thinking a bit more about it, I realize that this policy is not timeindependent. In Iceland they still use the older way of identifying people by their parent's given name, and contemporary Icelanders do not get their names changed in Swedish. E.g. the former president of Iceland Vigdís Finnbogadóttir would be called just that in Swedish media, without "Swedification" (perhaps replacing the letters í by i and ó by o, though.) Historical persons, on the other hand, like middle age kings, do get their names translated. Funny!

#40 Oh, aren't you a sweetheart? Thanks for preparing the spelling list. I'll print it out and use it to listen to the words again. I keep trying to say the names out loud as I come across them in the book, but I'm so afraid that I'm totally butchering the pronounciations.

Meanwhile, I finished part one and began part 2 this afternoon. I think Kristin's father must be a wonderful, warmhearted man who loves her very much. He just doesn't match my stereotyped image of a medieval father who considers the daughters as little more than chattel - just another asset to be profitable handled.

I am finding this re-read of Kristin Lavransdatter a slog. I thought I had the new, Tiina Nunnally translation, but NO foolish old man that I am I bought a paper edition of the Archer and Scott translation. Drat.

Oh well, it's not like it's my first trip around this block, so I can make it work. I must say that the imagery of Undset's is just lovely even after translation. It's spare and sparing, and very much a surprise to me how powerful its affect is on me. It's slightly old-fashioned to use so few adjectives in a world of David Foster Wallaces and Rick Moodys. It's also nice, in an odd sort of way, a little like eating prune whip for dessert instead of a huge slab of yechhy cheesecake glop slathered with fake, too-red "strawberry" goop and topped with a sculpted bleached white puppy-poopie of BHA and BHT masquerading as whipped cream.

richardderus: "I must say that the imagery of Undset's is just lovely even after translation. "

So true! Kristin's trip to the mountain pastures and to Hamar are described in such vivid pictures.

I am only 50 pages into the book now. Fierce competition by North and South which I am reading parallel... - I'll have to decide whether to read on about Ulvhild's accident or about poor Mr. Thornton roaming the countryside trying to compose himself after being refused by Miss Hale *sniffle*).

I have the movie version in fairly fresh memory, so I couldn't help sometimes comparing the book to it while reading.

Speaking of Ulvhild's accident, I must say I was somewhat relieved as I read in the book that Kristin didn't have any part in the accident. In the movie they had made her take on Trond's role for this scene. As I remember the movie, Kristin unintentionally made the log roll down onto her sister while trying to save her from the ox. That small change planted a sense of guilt into Kristin for a long time and shifted her motives for why she wanted to spend a year in the nunnery toward being more about a possible way to appease God and have him heal Ulvhild and less about buying time before the wedding. Though this adds an interesting twist to the story, Undset's original version still comes out on top in my mind as it keeps the focus more on Kristin's relations as the central theme.

I just finished part one as well - I found it a bit hard to get into but ultimately engaging. I don't know -- the prose seems a bit stilted to me.

This very early medieval time period is interesting -- interesting the interplay between the old pagan deities and Christianity -- the fall of the Roman Empire really wasn't all that distant at this time.

So I wasn't real clear what was transpiring between Simon and Lavrans when they go have a chat after Arne's death. Lavrans mentions that Kristen wants to go to a convent for a time - but there seems to be some reveal there that I couldn't quite make out. Does Lavrans have some doubts about Simon's character here?

#48 -- About the movie...Annix, do you know if it was filmed in Norway? And does is seem true to the book? This may be one of the few movies I care to own. The book isn't my favorite, but I am learning so much about my heritage. (My maternal grandfather, Emil Olsen, was born in Bergen.) If it shows the beautiful scenery, it may save my husband the big bucks of a trip to Norway. I'm still upset that we were in Denmark two years ago and, due to time constraints, couldn't travel to Norway or Sweden.

#50 Yes, it was filmed in Norway. They "recreated" Jørundgaard with its buildings in the valley Gudbrandsdalen, close to where it would have been located according to the books. (Look at http://www.jorundgard.no) They seem to have paid a lot of attention to creating the right atmosphere of the time and place.

The movie only includes the first volume of Kristin Lavransdatter and it is three hours, I believe. Still they had to shorten it a lot from the book. They have omitted some caracters and merged some events into one, moving others in time, while some are excluded altogether. Probably that was ineviteble to make the length reasonable. I get the impression the screenplay writer wanted to stay reasonably true to the book, given the restrictions that come with the territory in filmmaking.

There are not a whole lot of scenic sequencies, but a few. E.g. in the very beginning where Kristin is brought along on one of her father's trips and you see her and Arne sit next to eachother looking out over the valley from a height. It's a breathtaking view! But much of the story takes place at Jørungaard, in the nunnery or at other indoor settings. There probably wasn't a lot of time left for beautiful shots just for the sake of it, as they had to fit in all the scenes to make the story develop.

Bottom line: it does give a glimpse of Norway, and it is an OK movie, well worth seeing. If you normally see a lot of Hollywood movies, this will sure be something different. Personally I like the book a lot better though. Obviously a film can't compare to experiencing Norway and its nature for real, but it might well succeed in creating a three-hour mini-vacation. On the other hand there is the risk that you feel that you really need to go there with your family after watching the movie :-)

(And if you ever have the means and time to go to Norway and Sweden I think you should. Bergen is a beautifully located town by the water and the mountains. Rainy - yes, but beautiful. I've been there for work for altogether some weeks over the past years. I especially appreciate how you can take the funicular from the center right up to the mountains. Extremely convenient for an afternoon hike...)

P.S. I checked the movie data, and it also lists Sweden and Germany as filming sites, in addition to Norway. I'm not sure what parts of the movie were made there though.

Annix, thank you for your thoughtful movie analysis. I agree that the movie most often pales in comparison to the book, but it does give one a different perspective. I will be looking to either rent or buy the movie version. I'm disappointed that they didn't do adaptations of Parts 2 and 3; however, I haven't read them yet. Perhaps they don't transfer as well to the screen.

#49 - I came away from that scene thinking that maybe it was Simon who was having second thoughts. Well, maybe not second thoughts, but an ulterior motive. Need to go back and re-read.

>49 jhowell:, 52: I also got thee impression that Simon was taking Lavrans out for a renegotiation session. It's never made explicit what they are doing, but that seems in keeping with the fact that this is from Kristin's POV and she would not be involved in any business dealings between the two men.

That seemed to me to be Undset giving us a taste of the role Kristin plays in Lavrans' world...beloved child, yes, but also subject of a wholly separate business existence that creates for her a different identity: daughter versus child, if that makes any sense.

#53,54 - yes, after reading further I think that what y'all said is correct; Simon so far appears to be an upstanding guy; just kind of goofy.

#55 I'm not sure I say "upstanding" - there's something a little shady about him, but I don't know if I'm getting that from reading the book or glancing ahead to the part 2 comments here! But you're right, so far there is nothing overtly wrong with him.

I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but I can't remember how it was that Arne was killed - after all, it was almost 4 days ago that I read that chapter! But without remembering the details, I've got a gut feeling that Simon had something to do with it. Or at least some knowledge about it that he's keeping secret. Does anyone else have a bad feeling about him, or am I way off base?

Going back to re-read. Again.

#56 I haven't found Simon sinister. But, then again, I have been fanatic about not peeking on the threads that are ahead of where I am!

#56 - No, I didn't get that Simon had anything to do with Arne's death. Arne was killed in a fight with the dude who attacked Kristen on the road and tried to rape her.

The only thing that I maybe picked up on about Simon is that he may have some knowledge about whorehouses and/or which women were sent to convents for being "loose." But of course, some things have always been the same -- this is not such a bad thing in a guy. I think the 'secret knowledge' you are referring to is that Simon has surmised that Kristen and Arne had a little thing going.

>58 jhowell: jhowell, and that would explain why I get the strong impression that Simon wants to see Lavrans alone to reopen marriage negotiations! It's a sound surmise no matter what, that Simon knows something he's not letting on that he knows.

I've been musing about the structure of Book 1 of The Wreath and have come to see it as one of expansion and contraction. As the book opens, Kristin's world is quite small -- just her home valley and the family farm.

Almost immediately, her horizons are quite literally broadened; she accompanies Lavrans into the mountains where she sees just how small her valley is, just how many other such valleys there are, how few of them are inhabited, and how far apart the human settlements lie. On this same trip -- partly because she's out of her home range, and partly I think as a clue to her character -- she wanders off, gets lost, and has a fleeting encounter with an unknown danger in the form of the woman in the forest. Kristin returns from this trip unscathed but changed -- she now knows just how small her part of the world is.

Lavrans then takes her to town -- most importantly a cathedral town. This time, it's not immensity of the natural world that opens up before her; it's the grandeur of the works of the human world, in the form of the city itself and the cathedral in particular. Until this point, Kristin's experience of architecture is small, intimate, and utilitarian; it's been confined for the most part to buildings on the farm. And, by way of extreme contrast with the cathedral, her own tiny village church.

To my thinking, this expansion of the scope of Kristin's experiences serves to provide her with a sense of possibility, an inkling of what the world might be and how she might make her way in it. But as soon as Kristin starts to see a little of the ways of the world, the world begins to crash in upon her in a series of tragedies: her sister's maiming, her attempted rape by Bentein, and Arne's murder at Bentein's hands.

Book 1 of The Wreath ends as Kristin's world once again begins to contract -- or perhaps merely seems to contract -- as she's sent to a convent to be cloistered and educated (and removed from the village).

That's a really interesting take on it cornerhouse, I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the next part. I'm not going to post anything else in case I inadvertently give bits away....

#60 Very interesting points, and reminds me that I meant to keep an eye out for Bentein later in the trilogy. Do you think Undset had him escape from custody NOT to reappear?

#46 - I've just started this and wanted to ask what translations the people who were reading this in English had! I am also reading the Archer & Scott, and I wonder if it wasn't deliberately archaic even in the 1930s. Is the original text written in archaic-style Norwegian? If not, I don't think there's any justification for a paragraph like: "Now, at length, was Kristin's weeping stilled. She sat upon her father's knee and ate porridge and cream from out the same spoon as he", even if you were writing in 1930!

That said, I'm enjoying it, especially the descriptions - but I do have to concentrate quite hard...

I'm reading the Tina Nunnally translation and I find it well-written, not archaic. If you can find a copy, you might want to check to see if it would be easier reading.

wandering_star, wait until you get to part 3, there're some bits that are so archaic that they border on unintelligible. I would also be interested to know whether the Norwegian was archaic. I kind of gave Archer the benefit of the doubt and assumed no-one would be that archaic without reason - now I'm beginning to doubt that!

From what I read, the original English translation was purposely archaic - even though Unsted did not write archaically in the original Norwegian. In the original, there were some archaic words where appropriate, but otherwise the prose was fairly modern.

Hopefully, kjellika can weigh in on this?

#63
I don't think it is only the translation, I read a Dutch translation from the 1960s and I recognise the sentence.

I started reading today and finished this part. One thing I found a bit strange, although I understand the book is about Kristin, the excistance of her second sister Ramborg is only very briefly mentioned.

I'm reading the Norwegian original, and do not find it archaic. Actually I often find the language surprisingly modern and flowing, though sometimes with the exception of a few specific words. But most often these are chosen to reflect the world view and society of the 14th centuary as I understand it. Then again, I'm not Norwegian ... I probably wouldn't notice if some of the words were outdated. The Scandinavian languages have kept different words, so you always have to be imaginative when reading another Scandinavian language than your own in order to comprehend every word. Anyway, the sentences and the way to tell a story appear modern to me. But it'll be interesting to hear Kjell's opinion.

I looked up the passage you quoted. It goes like this in Norwegian:
Da først stilnet Kristins graat. Hun sat paa farens fang og spiste grøt og rømme av samme ske som han.
To me that sounds like a very easy and straightforward way to express it, and without the awkwardness of Archer's & Scott's translation.

I am sooo glad I am reading the Tiina Nunnally translation. Much easier on my patience.

#67 -- Maybe they found Ramborg under a cabbage leaf? She did just kind of suddenly pop into the story, didn't she? And, as I recall, she didn't even live with her family for a year or so.

Oh, gosh! I read this great book Kristin Lavransdatter as a young girl when I came across it in my parent's library (over 50 years ago) and loved it. It was one bound volume and I have now idea whose translation, but it did not find it difficult. It was my first experience of women who empower themselves and take on the world. I always fancied that I would hand a pair of scissors from my belt when I grew up and became a wife and mother, but I never did (tie the scissors -- or grow up either, for that matter!). I then gave it to my daughters to read when they reached their teens and they also loved it. But I didn't know readers in this day and age are familiar with it, as I had never read of it, seen any reviews or comments about it in all this time. I'm so glad all of you are enjoying it (even if it is a struggle at times). I lost my copy somewhere along the way and now am inspired to purchase a new one and re-read it.

I read this wonderful book (Kristin Lavransdatter) as a young girl when I came across it in my parent's library (over 50 years ago) and loved it. It was one bound volume and I have no idea whose translation, but I did not find it difficult. It was my first experience of women who empower themselves and take on the world. I always fancied that I would hang a pair of scissors from my belt when I grew up and became a wife and mother, but I never did (tie on the scissors -- or grow up either, for that matter!). I then gave the book to my daughters to read when they reached their teens and they also loved it. But I didn't know readers in this day and age are familiar with it, as I had never read of it, seen any reviews or comments about it in all this time. I'm so glad all of you are enjoying it (even if it is a struggle at times). I lost my copy somewhere along the way and now am inspired to purchase a new one and re-read it.

GlobalVagabond, you should join us in the read! It might be time for a reread, you know. :) Even if you decide to not reread, please feel free to jump in with comments and join the discussion of each section.

I'm reading the Archer/Scott translation and found it slow going in the beginning. I assumed that the original Norwegian was written the same way - to reflect the period of the story. I decided not switch to the more recent translation because I figured this old one would be closer to the original writing. After the first 10 or 20 pages, the reading picked up and I haven't really noticed the style up to now. But if the orginal was modern, why in the world wasn't the English translation done likewise? Oh well. I'm ready for part 3 now, and am not going to switch now.

I'm just about to finish volume 1 and I have to say that after the first section, I got used to the style and I'm racing through. Although, sjmccreary, I too can't understand why Archer would make that kind of stylistic decision. To me, the best translators surely keep as close to the original in style and content as they can, whilst rendering the works as naturally as possible in the second language. It seems that to make a sweeping decision to use vastly archaic language if the original did not is putting too much of the translator's own stylistic stamp on the work. After all, it is Undset's book we want to read...

My Norwegian paperback edition was published in 2007, and I think the language is slightly modernized.

The Norwegian language (bokmål) has lots of words from Danish because Norway and Denmark were one "nation" from 1380 to 1840. (cf. #33 and http://www.tacitus.nu/historical-atlas/scandinavia/norway.htm). I know that much more Danish words were used in the 1920s than nowadays. I think Undset wrote some kind of archaic Norwegian in her novels taking place in the Middle Ages (i.e. words, phrases, lines etc.) to create a special atmosphere. But I can't imagine it should be difficult to nowadays Norwegians to read and understand the stories.

In my Norwegian version archaic words are explained and 'translated' into modern Norwegian at the end of the volumes. And there's quite a lot of them, especially in volume II and III.

Archer/Scott used probably an old version of KL (when was this edition published?) while translating, and Nunnally a modern one? All the same, I hope not the Norwegian publishers have modernized Undset's style!!

#68 Annix
When was your Norwegian edition published?

'aa' has changed to 'å' in modern Norwegian.
'ske' (Danish) = 'skje' (mod. Norw.)

#75 Kjellika
Thanks for your reply. Obviously the language seem a bit more archaic to a native Norwegian speaker than a fellow Scandinavian would be able to pick up.

#68 Annix
When was your Norwegian edition published?
It is a first edition. The volumes are from 1920, 1921, and 1922 respectively. No explanations or "translations" at the end of those ...

I do find the "aa"s somewhat cumbersome. "Naaja" (well), having finished the 366 pages of the first volume, I'm slowly getting used to them. But old spellings like "ske" instead of "skje" I certainly would not notice. In Swedish it's "sked" and as long as you are using the same word I'm as happy as can be and don't care a bit about a tiny letter here or there :-)

There have been a few words (very few actually) which I've had to look up in an online dictionary but not noticeably more of them than I probably would not quite comprehend in a modern text either.

#76
Of course!
The editions I'm envious of, you know.
56 years old brain doesn't remember all messages posted here, especially those posted recently..............

:-/

#75 My edition was published in 1948, I think (don't have it here in front of me). But I think the original English translation must be quite a lot earlier than that - maybe 1923, or 1928? The intervening editions seem to be different combinations of volumes - first in 3 volumes, then all 3 books in one volume, then back to 3 volumes (the one I have). I didn't find any indication that the translation was different for any of these.

#74 I totally agree about wanting to read the original author's work, not the translator's. But until I learn to read the original language, I'm afraid I have no choice but to trust that the translation is a good one. Even when I read comments about different translations of the same works, I still have to rely on someone else's opinion about which is closest to the original. I've gotten accustomed to Archer's language, and am getting along fine. If I read KL again, perhaps I'll look for a newer translation and make the comparison.

General info: Archer and Scott's translation was made in 1923, shortly after the last volume was published in Norway. Apparently Undset's style wasn't to the taste of the translators of the day, so it was altered. The quote that follows is from her Wikipedia article and seems to me to be reliable enough:

"Undset experimented with modernist tropes such as stream of consciousness in her novel, although the original English translation by Charles Archer excised many of these passages. In 1997, the first volume of Tiina Nunnally's new translation of the work won the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction in the category of translation. The names of each volume were translated by Archer as The Bridal Wreath, The Mistress of Husaby, and The Cross, and by Nunally as The Wreath, The Wife, and The Cross."

I've run into a harder road tracing the career of translator Charles Archer to see why he chose to make his translation into a pseudo-historical voice.

#69 Donna828
Yes, Ramborg lived with Tordis, who had nursed her as a baby.
The other sister Ulvhild came also a bit sudden in the story, but later on it is explained that Ragnfrid did not want her daughter around at birth, because the girl could get afraid of it.

#79, That's really interesting. Despite the fact that I'm enjoying the Archer translation, I now feel I have to go and get the Nunnally one once I've got some pennies and read it again in the future to see how differently they handle the work. I'm going to roll with the Archer one to the end now (I'm about half-way through) but it does irritate me that a translator would feel it necessary to excise paragraphs in what is, to all intents and purposes, an attempt to change the author's original stylistic choice rather than deal with an 'intelligibility' issue for non-native speakers. Is it just me, or does this sound like it's overstepping the translational line?

#81 I agree that it sounds like Archer overstepped the bounds. I wonder why people weren't upset at the time. Were readers less interested in the author's words 85 years ago, or less aware of the issue? Maybe a bad translation was better than none at all. I'm definitely more interested now in getting the Nunnally translation. But, having gotten this far, I don't think I'll switch for this reading.

>81 klarusu:/82 I think the idea of what a "good" translation is has changed dramatically, especially from the 19th to the 20th century. In years past, I believe that the expectation was that translators would not only translate the text into another language, but also attempt to translate the "feel" or the underlying emotion of the text. I think it's more a remnant of times past than a "bad" translation.

I finally started KL last night. Read Chapter 1.
I have the Tina Nunnally translation and I am finding it easy to read so far.

Finished Part 1. The imagery is wonderful and the characters very realistic. Kristin's father obviously loves her very much and I think he has agreed to her entering the covent in order to protect her and also to allow her to grieve over Arne. Her mother has had lot of sadness in her life but whenever her daughters have been ill she has been there to help nurse them back to health.
I liked Arne and am sorry he was killed by Bentein.
I reserve judgement on Simon - I am not sure about his feelings for Kristin but he is attracted by her innocence compared to some of the women he has met, although he does seem to be surprised when Lavran tells him that Kristin is going to the convent.
I am looking forward to Part 2.

>83 Talbin: Talbin, I concur with your assessment of the role translators played in the past. I think, though, that the translators of the present are under the same charge, that is, to present the "feeling" of the work translated.

I simply put it down to a marketplace shift. American literary consumers are more sophisticated in their tastes today, and translation choices and projects are more accepted in that market niche if they are "faithful" translations instead of "interpretive" ones.

That said, I think the market for literature in translation, though larger in absolute numbers than before, is a smaller proportion of the book-buying audience. Oddly, the percentage of the populace that buys books is reasonably steady...see the American Bookseller's Association site at http://www.bookweb.org/ and click on the "Research and Statistics" tab for some interesting factoids.

I finally finished Part 1 of Book 1 today. I was sad that Kristin had to go elsewhere than to her family when she was assaulted. I am not that crazy about Simon although he doesn't seem too bad yet. I love the style of writing or at least my translation (Nunnally). I was surprised that Arne was killed as I had thought there would be a plotline of choosing between him and Simon. I like reading all about the early Church, too.

I never heard of this book before. I am so glad that this reading group brought it to my attention.
--BJ

I'm in volume II, part 2 just now. It's really a good repetition reading your comments here.
Thanks :))

I found that my German translation isn't too bad. I don't get the feeling "Oh, this was written ages ago, and it's soooo dated.". It does, however, use dated words every now and then, in a kind of "medieval" way. That would agree with what kjellika said about Undset's "archaic" Norwegian used in the novel.

I just finished Part 1, and am excited to move forward. I have a Tiina Nunnally translation (Penguin Classics)and have even less trouble following the language than I did Bleak House.

I am finally finished with Part 1 of book 1! I started with the Archer translation, but had barely begun when someone on this thread left me a note about how surperior the Nunnally translation is so I waited to continue until I could oreder and receive the new translation. I'm glad i did because it is really a joy to read--clear and beautiful prose.

I loved the beginning with the wonderful descriptions of the land because I could easily picture scenes. I also enjoyed learning the dynamics of the family--at the beginning Kristin is an only child who has a very close relationship with her father and a mother whom she loves and who loves her but the relationship is not as close and the mother sometimes feels a little "left out." I identified with this because that was similar to my family, although I spent a lot of time with my mother when my father was on "sea duty' for 3 months at a time (USCG).

When Ulvhild was born I was surprised that Kristin showed absolutely no signs of jealousy and truly loved her little sister. Perhaps she was glad the her mother now had another child so Kristin did not have to feel "guilty" about herpartiality for her father. I also saw this love for her sister when she considers how she might help her get well by going into a convent--but she is torn because she "loves the world" and does not want to give it up.

As for Simon--he seems to be nice, to be fond of Kristin, and probably would make a 'good" husband for a nice docile wife in spite of being somewhat pompous. The big problem i see is that he really doesn't understand Kristin at all --vto him she is good "wife" material because she is attractive, comes from a good family and he expects her to be dutiful and obedient (probably never considers that any womn would ever be otherwise!). Unfortunate, Kristin has already shown signs that she is strongwilled and often does not obey her elders--just fades into the background so they don't notice her so she can hear what's going on. I have a feeling if they marry Simon will have his hands full. Kristin definitely did not like the way he ended up his handling of the incident of the scandal--he should have quit while he was ahead! Instead he allienated her by criticizing her friendship with Arne as if that were to blame for the scandal. I'm wondering if Kristin will ever marry him now--or will she be forced to marry him? Perhaps a year in the convent will teach her to be more submissive--although I'm not sure I would like that to be the outcome! Her lively spirit is what make her appealing to me. (I cannot figure out why someone on another thread calls Kristin a "brat." There is a diffference between a strong-willed child and a brat.)

Off to Part 2 where we will find out how Kristin gets along in the Abbey!

>91 MusicMom41: MusicMom41 - Once you get into part 2, I think you'll learn a little more about where the "brat" nickname may have come from. Personally, I think brat may be a little strong, but you'll soon discover that Kristin is pretty darn human - warts and all. :-)

#92 Talbin

I agree--Kristin is definitely human and has already made some capitol errors but she seems to me to also be thoughtful of others and aware of their needs--in other words she doesn't, so far, strike me as being entirely self absorbed. I've started part 2 and am starting to wonder if besides being strong willed maybe she is also a little naive, not being aware that she lets herself get into dangerous situations. I hope to finish part 2 in the next day or two and will pot on that thread.

Thanks for responding to my post! I'm really behind on this book. RL was somewhat stressful the last week or so.