"Gospel of Loki" Full Discussion *Spoilers*

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Finally, a light book won! What did you think? Did it work for you? This book had a lot of mixed reactions in the First Impressions thread, so let's try to keep conversation flowing by adding a positive to any negatives we might have, please!

[Anna]

Dearest Loki,

Your Humble Reader has been a fan of the trickster character since childhood. Yours Truly may have grown bored of Norse mythology on the way, but a good Loki story will always be welcome. It seems however, that Yours Truly has also grown weary of repetitive stories and the overuse of phrases such as 'Yours Truly', indeed Yours Truly feels like she would be very happy never to hear 'Yours Truly' again.

Yours Truly,
Your Humble Reader, otherwise known as Anna, the co-mod, Daughter of Sighs

PS. The character list was funny, it made me chuckle.

[Gabi]

LOL! Anna, I'm with you! After some chapters I had to stifle the urge to cry out whenever it was mentioned.

On the positive side: I dearly love the cover art.

[Soo]

I'm about 25% in the audio and the "jokes" stopped being funny about 5%. The writing sounds juvenile and the book is currently ruining one of my fav characters.

Definitely not a book I would recommend to anyone.

[Anna]

Soo wrote: "the "jokes" stopped being funny about 5%"

Agreed.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I found it light and quick. I spread it out over a week and that seems to have been good for me. I thought the beginning was very promising, and it had a few moments that made me chuckle throughout. I loved the part where we meet teen wolf Fenris. That was the sort of thing I was expecting more.

I don't think this was great literature, or even good storytelling, which surprises me with an author who gave us Chocolat. But I got a few laughs and had fun seeing the world of the Norse gods again.

[Paul]

Oh, I'm glad I get to be the person who likes a book more than others for a change!

Allison wrote: "I thought the beginning was very promising, and it had a few moments that made me chuckle throughout. I loved the part where we meet teen wolf Fenris. That was the sort of thing I was expecting more."

I agree. The parts that were only really possible to know from Loki's point of view were some of the best.

I thought the jokes became less crude as the story went on. Loki's voice went from immaturely playful to resentful towards the middle. I thought the voice held his character throughout the book and made sense from the angle that Loki was wildfire incarnate.

Some of the stories were a bit boring because they were fairly faithful to other versions of the same, but told through an immature voice. Some others were far more interesting when you get to hear Loki's justifying and inner monologue.

I suspect I'll like The Testament of Loki since I liked the voice of this one.

[Christopher]

I had a bit of a difficult time rating this one as I enjoyed it well enough, but wasn’t sure how much of my enjoyment stemmed from the myths themselves (which I’m less familiar with) rather than the modern overlay Harris provides. At the end of the day I decided all I could do is rate it based on my experience which was generally a positive one!

An interview with Harris in Starburst magazine gave me a little insight into her goals for the book. She says “I realized that a lot of my readers (of Runemarks and Runelight) weren’t as familiar with Norse myths as I’d imagined. I found myself getting requests for more details of what happened before Ragnarok and it occurred to me that it might be fun to reinvent those stories and give them a different angle...”

So the book was not really aimed at a knowledgeable scholar of Norse mythology, so it makes sense that it might have been a worse experience for those in our group with more extensive knowledge, you weren’t really the target audience.

I didn’t always love the clearly modern additions to the story (this article mentions when Loki says “chillax” which is a good example) and I found the book cruder than I’d like at times, but this article has an explanation for that as well, Harris says: “I wanted to recreate the irreverence of Loki’s voice in the original texts. In Lokasenna, Loki swears, uses insults, makes fart jokes, uses slang. The only way I could recreate that was to have him speak in a contemporary, self mocking idiom.” So if the myths themselves were crude I actually mind it less than if it was something added merely to jazz up an old text.

[Soo]

I love Norse Mythology and this book made it sound awful. Blargh.

Allan Corduner was a great narrator and I enjoyed his voice but I did not enjoy the book. There were moments when I thought it was okay but the overall response for me was relief when I got to the end.

I gave it 1 star because I felt like I was mildly tortured by listening to the whole book.

[Nicol]

I gave it two stars, it wasn't the worst book ever and there were some parts that were lyrical for sure, but it was mostly repetitive. I really do like the premise but didn't enjoy the execution. I think The Hidden Oracle does a much better job of embodying a snarky, arrogant god's voice that is hilarious. And it terms of norse mythology I like Neil Gaiman much better, especially Odd and the Frost Giants

[Kay]

Anna wrote: "Dearest Loki,

Your Humble Reader has been a fan of the trickster character since childhood. Yours Truly may have grown bored of Norse mythology on the way, but a good Loki story will always be wel..."

This. I was put off by the YT from the second time I heard it.

So shoot me. :-)

[Kay]

I had just finished Circe and decided to follow that up with this Loki. I didn't plan to follow one mythological antagonist retold by another one; it just worked out that way.

But The Gospel of Loki suffered by the comparison.

Miller's Circe was layered, complex, deeply explored, and sympathetic. Miller said in a podcast I heard this morning that for every draft of Circe but the last, she told herself, "Go deeper."

Harris's Loki was superficial, with simple drives. Easy to understand, but also limited, like a one-string lute. (He wouldn't like that comparison.) I never needed to guess where he would stand on anything. Without depth, he was without mystery.

The gospel as a format for the story made sense to me at the end. And it was a bit of fun. But since Loki wasn't rendered as a sympathetic character for me here, the format meant I was essentially being preached to by an unlikable character. This kept me at an observation distance to the story at best; at worst, it was alienating.

The rest of the world also felt surface-level, and flat. I was most struck by this when Loki visits his daughter, and she describes the Underworld as boring, or something similar. Perhaps it is to her, and to Loki, but the writing rendered the trip boring to me, reading along.

I thought of how interesting the World of the Dead could be. Could there be zombie drama? Undead social politics and hierarchy? How did she interact with them? Or at least, how does a trip to that world engage the senses?

Could the Gospel have delved into finer-grained detail everywhere, to help bring the worlds to life?

As a light and fun explanation or example of the Norse stories, the book seemed cool. I liked the character list. The humor didn't bother me. The book would fit what some want. OK and good.

For me, it kinda just told me things. It didn't draw me in to live them a bit.

Still glad I read it, though!

[Oleksandr]

Kay wrote: "I had just finished Circe ... Gospel of Loki suffered by the comparison."

While I agree with you on the depths measurement of both books, I'd like to note that we know much less about Circe, who isn't a major player in Greek mythos, than about Loki, who is a major in the Norse one. So the author is more limited if they want to stick to a canon and make story interesting

[Alex]

Star Rating: 3.5

Right off the bat, I'll begin by saying that Loki is one of my favourite characters, period, and has been since I was a kid. So, I went into this book a little biased.

Overall, I really enjoyed this story! Harris captured Loki's snark quite well, and told all the very old tales in modern language. It was a lot of fun! He refers to himself as "Yours Truly" often enough to be annoying, but I'm not sure if that was on purpose or not. The character is supposed to be arrogant and irritating... so maybe it was on purpose? In any case, I learned quickly to just read past that. The stories themselves start out as almost stand-alone episodes and were hilariously explained by our narrator -- who is the dictionary-definition of unreliable. The Trickster, The Father of Lies, Wildfire... whatever you call him, whatever aspect he takes, Loki takes us through a series of seemingly unrelated incidents, introducing us to Odin, Thor, and the other Norse Gods, and trying his best to win us over to his version of events. Win us?

That's it for the spoiler-free part of this review, other than to say I needed something funny and am so glad this book came into my possession when it did. It was a wonderful diversion!

(view spoiler)[However, I think there is more to this book than just a amusing diversion. It's fairly obvious that Loki is not only trying to convince us that he's (mostly) innocent, but himself. There's a layer of guilt/responsibility there that Harris has woven through the stories, connecting the stand-alone events to the eventual undoing of, well, EVERYTHING at Ragnarok, including our narrator.

What is less obvious is the paradox in the fight between Chaos and Order -- between Free Will and Pre-Determinism. One always reins above the other for a time. The Worlds always end, as is often mentioned, and will begin again. If Order always falls to Chaos... then does Chaos win? Or is the fact that Chaos always wins, a kind of pre-determined Order?

Loki is stuck in the middle, not part of either. That's probably why I've always loved him -- he's a liminal character who can see both sides and fits in neither. He is us. Whichever it is -- Chaos/Free Will or Order/Pre-Determinism -- we're just along for the ride. In the end, Loki accepts it, revels in it, and we should, too.

Or maybe I'm reading way too much into something that's just supposed to be fun!
(hide spoiler)]

[Gabi]

Thanks for your thoughts, Alex. I loved reading them, cause I never went further than "don't like the humor" with the book.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I love your thoughts, Alex!! I agree about the liminality of Loki, and I liked it best when he was acting against something (not just pranking, but actually working to bring someone down or fix what he'd done). I felt she was pretty spot on with his reactions in those circumstances.

[Kay]

Oleksandr wrote: "Kay wrote: "I had just finished Circe ... Gospel of Loki suffered by the comparison."

While I agree with you on the depths measurement of both books, I'd like to note that we know much less about ..."

Thanks.

I think that no matter how much canon we have on a character, there's always room for writing that draws a reader in. For me, that happens in large part through detail and a sympathetic protag, which I just didn't find in this one. YMMV!

Kay

[Alex]

Gabi wrote: "Thanks for your thoughts, Alex. I loved reading them, cause I never went further than "don't like the humor" with the book."

I certainly hope you have better luck with next month's reads!

@Allison She really does have a good understanding of him. :)

[Dave]

While I was disappointed with the lack of new Norse content in this book, it was accurate. So 3/5 for me. The next book in the series actually goes where I expected this to go. This book is like a facts prequel to the next one which has new and creative storytelling....still not a 5/5 for me but the next is good. Unfortunately, there are only 2 books in the series so far.

[Lowell]

so... yeah. I enjoyed it, but it really wasn't particularly good. In the humble opinion of yours truly, it suffers from some tonal inconsistencies, and I think trying to hit all of the high points of the norse myths in one book without detailed re-writing caused more problems than not.

Though, if she wanted to maintain a "gospel" feel she did it correctly, because it really felt like "and so it came to pass" types of phrasing and the overall jumping from story to story was taken right out of several holy books I can think of.

I guess, what I really want, is a snarky EPIC that doesn't gloss over the little details - like how did Loki manage to get Sif into bed, really?

After thinking about it for a few hours, i'm probably going to go downgrade my rating from 3 to 2.

[Paul]

I've still not quite finished this, but wanted to post my opinion before the month was out. Yours Truely didn't exactly hate this book, but I didn't like it very much.

I found the style quite annoying, too written in the present day and not a patch on the Neil Gaiman version of these stories.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Lowell, I agree, the epic is what I wanted from this book.

Paul, that's fair! I haven't read the Gaiman version, but this book felt about as funny as the original sagas to me.

[Kristin B.]

This book tended toward repetition. What I mean to say is that I found it repetitive. In many instances information was repeated quite a lot. I found that the characters, scenarios, words and phrases were repeatedly similar. Did I mention there was a fair amount or repeating and reiteration?

Yours Truly was not a fan of the revisiting and recurrence.

I did really like the way they portrayed Fenris though. Surly teenager brings about the death of the All Father? I'm here for it.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Lol! I agree, Kristin! And the part with Fenris was the part that tickled me most. It made such sense and was the sort of new spin on a classic I was hoping for.

[Valerie]

I love Norse mythology and Loki is one of my favorites. I had high hopes. Alas, I didn't really feel that the book offered much of a different perspective. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the stories more had I not read Gaiman's Norse Mythology less than a year ago.

Having said that, if I were fresh to Norse Mythology, I probably would have enjoyed it more. So, it isn't a bad book. For me, however, it was just meh.

[Kevin]

I gave it 2 stars. I found it repetitive and it didn’t capture my imagination or hold my attention, even while I was reading it.

[Maartje]

I just finished it and really liked the way it was told. I’ve read a few Edda books and think Harris did a great job. I gave this book 4 stars.

[Dave]

So, I ended up reading the next book in the series "Testament of Loki" and it actually brought new content and new story that was a good read. I mention it only because the main criticism that I saw of "Gospel of Loki" was the lack of new material in the first book.

[Peggy]

I finally had to admit defeat on this one. I made it to the halfway point and realized I did not like any of the characters and didn't really care what happened to any of them. Even imagining this Loki as Tom Hiddleston didn't help. Not my cuppa tea, unfortunately.

[Maggie]

I found I liked it fine, but reading over these criticisms, I think the reason I liked it was I was reading two other books at the same time....lol
This book was in my car to read when eating lunch alone and waiting for appointments, so maybe if I had read it in a more linear fashion I would have been annoyed!