|
Well, I've read it and rather enjoyed it. I was surprised initially by how different in tone and effect these lays are from Tolkien's Middle-earth-related lays, the 'Lay of Leithian' and, particularly, the alliterative 'Children of Hurin'. Tolkien's comments on the differences between Old English and Old Norse verse could equally well describe the differences between his lays of Middle-earth and of the old North. 'Sigurd' and 'Gudrun' are far shorter, more terse; they make use of quick, bold strokes and flashes of imagery rather than fully fleshed narrative. Even the individual half-lines are shorter; there's nary a syllable more than is absolutely needed in any of them. This produces a far more markedly rhythmic effect than in Tolkien's more English alliterative verse, but this comes at the cost of a great number of inversions and un-proselike word orderings; there was the occasional sentence that I had to read twice to parse.
I agree with some of the reviewers linked to that the 'Lay of Gudrun' is the better of the two. I think the reasons for this may be related to the stylistic points mentioned above. The action of 'Gudrun' is far more concentrated, limited to just a few episodes, than that of the 'Lay of the Volsungs', and it seems to lend itself to the style of this verse more than the latter. I thought several times as I was reading it that the 'Lay of the Volsungs' might be served better by Tolkien's English-style alliterative verse (the kind used in the alliterative 'Children of Hurin'). This is certainly not to say that I didn't enjoy it; and some episodes (e.g. the death of Sigurd) were very well done. On the other hand, one episode that I thought a little disappointing was the slaying of Fafnir. As a matter of fact, I was a bit surprised at how little a mark Fafnir himself makes upon the poem, considering Tolkien's opinion of him as 'the prince of all dragons'.
The chief element that Tolkien added to the story, the role appointed for Sigurd in the Ragnarok, is a well-placed stroke. It at once lends an overarching purpose to the narrative and explains the sometimes confusing role that Odin plays in it. It also makes the story less of an 'amoral' one (whether that's good or bad is, I suppose, a matter of taste). And, of course, it only strengthens the association between Sigurd and Turin. With other, smaller, changes, Tolkien does a very good job of making sense out of confusing or contradictory points in the sources.
The commentary and explanatory material provided by Christopher Tolkien (and largely drawn from lectures and notes by his father) is wonderful. I particularly enjoyed the appendix on the origin of the legends, which is better than all the other brief treatments of that topic that I've read combined. In the commentary, Christopher Tolkien compares in some detail the stories found in these Lays with those in their sources, the Volsunga Saga, the Edda of Snorri Sturluson, and various poems from the so-called 'Elder Edda'.
|