Extended author's notes for 'carved'
Nov. 26th, 2012 09:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
grassangel(original manip)
I am not fond of the concept of the markings on Jotunn in the MCU as being natural. Markings are in nature for camouflage. They’re random, meant to blend in with the environment and that they can be used for identification is a secondary benefit.
Also, just like red hair in humans doesn’t necessarily mean a person has a temper, a certain set of markings on an animal doesn’t mean anything.
So I really dislike the concept of natural markings meaning something, even with the fact that Norse mythology is big on destiny and prophecy.
Now, I’ve lived in New Zealand all my life and while moko aren’t common, they aren’t an unfamiliar sight. As with most Maori art, the designs have or tell stories and are considered sacred treasures to be protected. Pre-European moko were done with a tool that was more chisel than needle and the resulting moko was a combination of scarification and tattoo.
So while I’m not of Maori descent, and you should not take the above as anything approaching expertise, I do appreciate the huge cultural significance behind moko and other markings other cultures make upon their skin.
Adding that depth of history to Jotunn culture and having it influenced by mythological prophecy felt important to me. There is meaning behind those markings and it implies they have art, tradition and a way of communicating those things to future generations. With them Jotunn aren’t uncivilised beasts and whether you layer the Aesir/Jotunn war with hints of other religious or cultural wars, Jotunn are no longer a faceless or emotionless species - they want what was stolen from them returned.
The repetition of making the markings is taken partially from another form of scarification, branding, and from the fact that hypertrophic scarring is short lived for most scars without interference. Also contributing to this is that body modifications are often used to symbolise important events and rites in a person’s life. Since a lot of these events are already forseen and marked at birth, the markings are reinforced when those events happen. This accounts for why Loki’s markings aren’t in high relief; he hasn’t had them re-cut since he was an infant.
The ritual exposure is a nod to the widely held gospel that Loki was abandoned, and a lot of historical cultures did use exposure as a way to dispose of unwanted or abnormal children.
However I’m borrowing more from the ancient Grecian school of thought that an exposed child could be saved by the will of the Gods through direct intervention or by the kindness of a stranger. The ritual exposure is intended to allow the fates/Norns to either gift the child with a long and successful life or taken to be nursed in the halls of Hel. (Because Hel is a realm of second chances and Hel is an incorrigible romantic.)
Boðólfr translates roughly to ‘battle wolf’, although the second part was meant as a nod to Áleifr which has connotations of 'inheritance/legacy’.
I am not fond of the concept of the markings on Jotunn in the MCU as being natural. Markings are in nature for camouflage. They’re random, meant to blend in with the environment and that they can be used for identification is a secondary benefit.
Also, just like red hair in humans doesn’t necessarily mean a person has a temper, a certain set of markings on an animal doesn’t mean anything.
So I really dislike the concept of natural markings meaning something, even with the fact that Norse mythology is big on destiny and prophecy.
Now, I’ve lived in New Zealand all my life and while moko aren’t common, they aren’t an unfamiliar sight. As with most Maori art, the designs have or tell stories and are considered sacred treasures to be protected. Pre-European moko were done with a tool that was more chisel than needle and the resulting moko was a combination of scarification and tattoo.
So while I’m not of Maori descent, and you should not take the above as anything approaching expertise, I do appreciate the huge cultural significance behind moko and other markings other cultures make upon their skin.
Adding that depth of history to Jotunn culture and having it influenced by mythological prophecy felt important to me. There is meaning behind those markings and it implies they have art, tradition and a way of communicating those things to future generations. With them Jotunn aren’t uncivilised beasts and whether you layer the Aesir/Jotunn war with hints of other religious or cultural wars, Jotunn are no longer a faceless or emotionless species - they want what was stolen from them returned.
The repetition of making the markings is taken partially from another form of scarification, branding, and from the fact that hypertrophic scarring is short lived for most scars without interference. Also contributing to this is that body modifications are often used to symbolise important events and rites in a person’s life. Since a lot of these events are already forseen and marked at birth, the markings are reinforced when those events happen. This accounts for why Loki’s markings aren’t in high relief; he hasn’t had them re-cut since he was an infant.
The ritual exposure is a nod to the widely held gospel that Loki was abandoned, and a lot of historical cultures did use exposure as a way to dispose of unwanted or abnormal children.
However I’m borrowing more from the ancient Grecian school of thought that an exposed child could be saved by the will of the Gods through direct intervention or by the kindness of a stranger. The ritual exposure is intended to allow the fates/Norns to either gift the child with a long and successful life or taken to be nursed in the halls of Hel. (Because Hel is a realm of second chances and Hel is an incorrigible romantic.)
Boðólfr translates roughly to ‘battle wolf’, although the second part was meant as a nod to Áleifr which has connotations of 'inheritance/legacy’.
