Gripla - 20.12.2017, Blaðsíða 113

113
Because of these developments, one needs to conceive of a different
way of conceptualising monstrosity, a way that accounts for these degrees
of monstrosity, and to do so, it is essential to take into account, again,
the importance of the effect the monster has on those who encounter it,
and the way this effect impacts their perception of the threat posed by
the monster. not all monsters pose the same threat, and therefore, in
response to this threat, they are perceived differently. thus, what makes
a human or formerly human character monstrous is society’s perception.
It is public opinion that, for example, judges Grettir to be a dólgr, vargr,
vágestr or troll.48 If, however, an individual’s status as monster is contin-
gent on society’s perception of said individual, this means that monstros-
ity is not a stable, fixed or absolute concept. Perceptions can change, and
saga society’s opinions of a saga character are often quite volatile, with
public opinion giving voice to various perceptions of the protagonist as
either hero or monster, depending on their actions. I therefore propose to
conceive of monstrosity as a fluid scale, a continuum along which differ-
ent types of characters that society perceives as ‘other’ inhabit different
spaces. Moreover, if the perception of one and the same individual in a
given saga can change over time, this individual can move along the scale
of monstrosity, coming sometimes closer to the monstrous, and sometimes
closer to the human. Such a flexible concept of monstrosity is necessary to
fully grasp the implications of monstrous behaviour displayed by charac-
ters such as outlaws, berserkir and magic-users.49
another point McLennan raised in his thesis is that outlawry itself is
not the cause of “monstrous change”.50 While I would agree that more is
Sagas and Space, Preprints of Abstracts (Zürich: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Skandinav-
ische Studien, 2015), 48 (Ármann Jakobsson), 49 (arngrímur Vídalín) and 177 (Sarah
Künzler).
48 Grettis saga, 167: sǫgðu, at sá dólgr væri kominn í byggðina [they said that a fiend/enemy had
come to the settlement]; 229: Sǫgðu þeir heraðsmǫnnum hverr vargr kominn var í eyna [They
told the people of the district what a wolf/outlaw had come to the island]; 228: þótti mikill
vágestr kominn í Drangey [a very dangerous guest seemed to have come to Drangey]; 130:
var hann furðu mikill tilsýndar, sem troll væri [he was incredibly big to look at, as if he were
a troll]. Emphases mine. these examples show that it is society that is perceiving Grettir
here, they “sǫgðu” [said] or “þótti” [thought] and thus assign him his status as monster.
49 for a more detailed discussion of the conception and development of the scale of monstros-
ity, see rebecca Merkelbach, “the Monster in Me: Social Corruption and the Perception
of Monstrosity in the Sagas of Icelanders,” Quaestio Insularis 15 (2014): 22–37.
50 McLennan, “Monstrosity,” cf. 90, 107 and 140.
“HE HaS LonG forfEItED aLL KInSHIP tIES”