New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Loki?
in reply to a message by quigonjecca
From what I read, Loki was never a purely evil or destructive character in Norse mythology proper (he was just Loki, a hero, a villain, a trickster, the helper of gods and pain in their...posteriors... possibly a bit of a law unto himself but certainly not a force of evil or the "big bad" of the myths. He even saved the day a couple of times. I mean, Loka Táttur, right?), until the Christians (I'm sorry, but historical Christians were fond of this kind of dirty trick and ethnic bullying to their own ends, and either way tended to have this effect... it might not be the same today, but...) hijacked the myth and got their claws in upon which he was seriously maligned and transformed into more of a evil / devil-equivalent character, eventually resulting in the surviving and prevailing ideas of him. I mean, it's hard to think of a Norse god who wasn't a bit of a git at times, so Loki was about par for the course, but even though he was always a bit of a cunning little sod, there's a lot of proof that Norse society never saw him as evil and that maligning happened later.
Okay, rant over, but I don't agree with the whole mentality of Loki being a 'terrible god' as it's a pretty strong example of 'Hijacked by Jesus' and ethnocentric / historical stupidity.
And so, to be honest, I've always found Loki to be an interesting god as is, and I don't find many arguments for it being a name with a bad connotation, especially nowadays when there might be some poor people out there who have never even heard of the mythological character. I like the sound. I like the meaning. It's spunky, a little edgy, fascinating and unusual and yet not trendy or made up. I've known many, many kitties named Loki, so I think it's a really rather common cat name, but I've never understood why it's not used on people as well, so I'd say go with it! :)
And honestly, I think that mn is better, but fn, if spectacularly well thought out and balanced with the (perceived) character of a character or theoretical child, their middle name and surname, could be acceptable too. I won't say that it might not lead to a little teasing, but then I couldn't bet on it either.
Okay, rant over, but I don't agree with the whole mentality of Loki being a 'terrible god' as it's a pretty strong example of 'Hijacked by Jesus' and ethnocentric / historical stupidity.
And so, to be honest, I've always found Loki to be an interesting god as is, and I don't find many arguments for it being a name with a bad connotation, especially nowadays when there might be some poor people out there who have never even heard of the mythological character. I like the sound. I like the meaning. It's spunky, a little edgy, fascinating and unusual and yet not trendy or made up. I've known many, many kitties named Loki, so I think it's a really rather common cat name, but I've never understood why it's not used on people as well, so I'd say go with it! :)
And honestly, I think that mn is better, but fn, if spectacularly well thought out and balanced with the (perceived) character of a character or theoretical child, their middle name and surname, could be acceptable too. I won't say that it might not lead to a little teasing, but then I couldn't bet on it either.
This message was edited 6/19/2011, 9:39 AM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1