Reading the Chunksters discussion

I loved this part so much more than the first part! It really turned into a page turner as you went along. A few questions for you all:

1. Is Kristin fickle or has she experienced real love at this point?

2. Do you sympathize with Kristin more or less than during the first section on her childhood?

3. Ingebjorg is an interesting character - what do you think her purpose is in the novel?

4. Is Erlend well meaning or taking advantage of Kristin's naïveté?

5. Why does Lavrans like Simon so much? Why does this bother Kristin?

6. Does Kristin deserve her negative reputation?

I agree, this section gets far more gripping for me. I don't see Kristin as fickle, she is intoxicated with Erlend - though I was surprised that she is drawn into a sexual relationship as fast as she is. This is where my archaic Archer translation bowdlerises and I had some '...' at the more heated moments!

Erlend, for me, is a 'careless person' - he may well be genuine in his feelings for Kristin in the moment, but he's unreliable and not wholly to be trusted, I fear.

Erlend is in words my mother would use, a scoundrel.
Kristin is 16 in this section and he is 28. She is in a convent for goodness sake. A woman's virtue was paramount back then and what he has done makes it very unlikely that she would be able to marry well.
Erlend is more attractive to Kristin and if you read to the end of the section you see that her mother seemed to have a higher sex drive than her father. Probably she has a greater testosterone level than average and Kristin has inherited the same.
Simon seems a good man but Kristin is not attracted to him sexually.
It is an age old story of young girl deflowered by a less than honourable man. Undset is exploring this theme and the emotions of all involved. This part is more interesting.

Roman Clodia wrote: "I agree, this section gets far more gripping for me. "

Yes, more gripping, but much less satisfying.

What Kristin has experienced isn't, for me, true love, but infatuation and "puppy love." She barely knows Erlend, certainly doesn't know him well enough to entrust her future to him. In a way I wish she had gotten pregnant (I'm still in the middle of the section, so maybe she does) so she could understand the wrongness of her deflowerment.

I'm not sure about the Tracey's assertion that "A woman's virtue was paramount back then." We seem already to see enough woman who have not protected their virtue but don't seem to be being punished for it. Was that really a virtue of the time, or are we imposing a later moral sense on the work? (I'm reminded that in English culture during the 18th and 19th centuries many marriages took place after pregnancy; providing children was a central purpose for marriage, and it was prudent to make sure that a woman was fertile before committing to a marriage which at the time for those classes was unbreakable. Perhaps the same somewhat looser view of woman's virtue was prevalent at the time of this novel? I'm just speculating, don't know, but Kirstin doesn't really seem to believe that she has done a terrible thing and ruined her chance for a decent marriage.)

But still, I can't excuse her jumping almost casually into bed with a man who has the highly questionable background that Erlend does, nor can I forgive him for taking advantage of a very young and really still quite innocent girl just because she thinks him brave (for rescuing her on the mountain) and handsome. He is, at the very least, a cad.

I just finished this part yesterday and I am finding it very engaging but frustrating. I have the same problems as Everyman, above, but my frustration is that I don't feel I have any kind of handle on Kristin's character. She seems like a dutiful daughter but what kind of dutiful daughter would just cavalierly toss aside the man her parents chose for her for a guy like Erland? And she goes running off for trysts while she is living in a convent? I'm not even totally clear what she sees in him.

I feel like this is one of those books in which the author uses his/her protagonist as a pawn to make a statement (in this case something to do with religion and faith) and fits the character into the action rather than having the action result from the character(s).

What keeps me engaged despite all that is that all the other characters feel very real and interesting.

Ellen wrote: "She seems like a dutiful daughter but what kind of dutiful daughter would just cavalierly toss aside the man her parents chose for her for a guy like Erland?"

Literature is full of women who choose the sexy 'bad guy' over the sensible, staid choice: Juliet and Romeo (and she's 14, even younger than Kristin), Helen who runs off with Paris rather than stay with Menelaus, Anna Karenina who chooses adultery with Vronsky, Mme de Tourvel and Valmont in Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Marianne Dashwood in Sense & Sensibility... even medieval Eloise and Abelard.

If the 'sensible' choice is associated with patriarchal values (suitors chosen by fathers like Simon in KL, or Paris in Romeo & Juliet; or husbands in the case of the married women) then having a female character choose a man for herself is a subversive act. That so many of these women are then 'punished' for their rebellion might be read as a way of reasserting ideological patriarchy. Just a suggestion of subtexts that might be at work here...

Ellen wrote: "And she goes running off for trysts while she is living in a convent?"

I don't know anything about convents in medieval Norway, but in the Renaissance period they're interesting spaces where women have some form of autonomy.

At a time when there are no schools for girls, convents offer them female companionship and a community and opportunities for education. Many girls/women are placed in convents not because they have any kind of religious vocation, but because they're unmarriageable for some reason, sometimes because their fathers can't afford a dowry.

So there might be more female freedom associated with the convent in the medieval period than we think.

Roman Clodia wrote: "So there might be more female freedom associated with the convent in the medieval period than we think. "

Yes, you're right. They were in a way the boarding schools for women. But still, while in one, one would expect a bit more socially acceptable behavior than we see here. Going off to tryst in a brothel while wearing the attire of the convent is really going too far.

I'd be on board with Kristin's independent-mindedness or a passionate nature that makes her throw caution to the wind if we saw it elsewhere in her character but so far not. And even if her wild infatuation was something that suddenly overtook her, I'd have thought she would have been tormented about it.

For some reason, I keep thinking of Scarlett O'Hara as a contrast. She did some stupid, crazy things but they all seemed totally fitting for her character.

I don't mean to belabor the point because so far the author is doing an excellent job of keeping me caught up in the story and making me forget my incredulity most of the time.

I'd describe Kristin as "silly". Not so much for giving in to her infatuation, which a lot of girls of her age probably would do, but for the way she spends her money, choosing Ingebjorg as a friend, and various other bad decisions. If Arne is looking down from the afterlife, he must be regretting getting into a fatal fight to defend her honour!

I'm enjoying the story, however, especially the descriptions of everyday life and social structure.

Ellen wrote: "I keep thinking of Scarlett O'Hara as a contrast"

Interesting! Kristin doesn't, for me, have any of the vividness of Scarlett - Scarlett seems to have a life of her own that spills off the page, Kristin seems more formed to play out Undset's moral points and vision.

I'm finding Undset quite a judgmental author: whereas we sympathise and enjoy Scarlett even when she's at her most frothy and wilful, I'm feeling manipulated to condemn Kristin according to Undset's own Catholic moral compass.

Considering this was written in 1920, it feels very old-fashioned in comparison to, say, T.S.Eliot, James Joyce, Scott Fitzgerald, Proust, D.H. Lawrence.

That said, I'm enjoying it, and like Kristin's father and mother who seem to be written with more subtlety that Kristin herself.

Roman Clodia wrote: Ellen wrote: "I keep thinking of Scarlett O'Hara as a contrast"

Interesting! Kristin doesn't, for me, have any of the vividness of Scarlett - Scarlett seems to have a life of her own that spills off the page, Kristin seems more formed to play out Undset's moral points and vision. .."

It took until the second book before the same idea occured to me. I'm not sure if it was because it became more apparent or that I just wasn't paying attention in the first one. But,yes, I too suddenly thought 'Actually Kristin's personality reminds me a great deal of Scarlett O'Hara'

I'm finding Undset quite a judgmental author: whereas we sympathise and enjoy Scarlett even when she's at her most frothy and wilful, I'm feeling manipulated to condemn Kristin according to Undset's own Catholic moral compass.

Margaret Mitchell was very skillful in writing Scarlett as both utterly destable and supremely admirable but she was also very judgemental in her writing. As readers we were were hit over the head with the idea that slave plantations really weren't all that bad, that slaves were mostly happy with their lot, that slave owners were good, decent folks and that the KKK was a noble ideal born out of the honourable desire to protect vunerable white women from all the evil negro's, who once freed from their proper place, would rape and molest them.

Ellen wrote: "I'd be on board with Kristin's independent-mindedness or a passionate nature that makes her throw caution to the wind if we saw it elsewhere in her character but so far not.."

Well, she did run away from her father that time they went up into the mountains when she saw the evil woman.

Everyman wrote: "Ellen wrote: "I'd be on board with Kristin's independent-mindedness or a passionate nature that makes her throw caution to the wind if we saw it elsewhere in her character but so far not.."

Well, ..."

It's not so much that she hasn't really acted up before now because she's had no reason to; she had loved her father more than anything else and just wanted to please him. Now the question is, how does she act when she feels as strongly as she does towards a less than morally upright man? Does she have principles? True religious feeling?

The 14th century in Europe was full of hardship and two great natural disasters: the little ice age and the black plague. As such people became more religious and dwelt more on sin assuming that the calamities had come as divine punishment because of the sinfulness of the people. This I think is part of what Undset is trying to show.

I haven't yet seen Undset being as judgmental as Roman Clodia observed, though I agree with Roman on Kristen's character and the traditional bad boy attraction. I wonder if the Archer translation shows more narrative judgment.
I also don't see Kristen as manipulative as characters such as Scarlett O'Hara or Becky Sharp. She seems more naively wilful than manipulative.
Because I was aware of Undset's moral and religious views, the book is more vivid, sensual, and enjoyable, than I had expected. I presume I'll see the narrative judgment eventually.

I think the notion of a woman's virtue is apt for the time, and this is clear in the attitude of Kristin's parents and even the townspeople. Kristin is young, impetuous and naive, and Erlend is the dashing and selfish scoundrel. I highly doubt they genuinely love each other!

Ellen wrote: "I just finished this part yesterday and I am finding it very engaging but frustrating. I have the same problems as Everyman, above, but my frustration is that I don't feel I have any kind of handle..."

I think this is totally possible, and reading about the author's religious background absolutely makes it seem like she might have used Kristin to impart a message to her readers. Certainly not that our young Kristin is a model of virtue!

Roman Clodia wrote: "Ellen wrote: "She seems like a dutiful daughter but what kind of dutiful daughter would just cavalierly toss aside the man her parents chose for her for a guy like Erland?"

Literature is full of w..."

It seems clear that in this time and place matches were made for business or political purposes, or to acquire more land, etc. It was interesting how it annoyed Kristin that Lavrans liked Simon so much. I wonder how many women actually questioned this arrangement at the time. Kristin doesn't seem to give it any weight whatsoever!

Roman Clodia wrote: "Ellen wrote: "And she goes running off for trysts while she is living in a convent?"

I don't know anything about convents in medieval Norway, but in the Renaissance period they're interesting spac..."

I did that that Kristin did evolve somewhat in the convent, and that it was a positive change for her (other than the rich and self-absorbed friend)

Everyman wrote: "Roman Clodia wrote: "So there might be more female freedom associated with the convent in the medieval period than we think. "

Yes, you're right. They were in a way the boarding schools for women...."

oh come on everyman! you are such a prude. ;)

Rosemary wrote: "I'd describe Kristin as "silly". Not so much for giving in to her infatuation, which a lot of girls of her age probably would do, but for the way she spends her money, choosing Ingebjorg as a frien..."

good points rosemary, she is silly! Although perhaps it was because she was so isolated, she had no experience to draw upon to inform her decisions, so she had no idea what she was doing! ALso, she seemed somewhat estranged from her mother, who probably offered her little guidance.

Roman Clodia wrote: "Ellen wrote: "I keep thinking of Scarlett O'Hara as a contrast"

Interesting! Kristin doesn't, for me, have any of the vividness of Scarlett - Scarlett seems to have a life of her own that spills o..."

exactly right roman clodia! I wonder if she will redeem herself, or fall further into sin...

Nicola wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Ellen wrote: "I'd be on board with Kristin's independent-mindedness or a passionate nature that makes her throw caution to the wind if we saw it elsewhere in her character but so f..."

I don't think she has principles or religion. I can't imagine how her father must have felt to have lost out to the scoundrel in his prized daughter's heart!

Tracey wrote: "The 14th century in Europe was full of hardship and two great natural disasters: the little ice age and the black plague. As such people became more religious and dwelt more on sin assuming that th..."

interesting and very helpful Tracey! what was the timing of these disasters vs the time that the book was set?

Dianne wrote: "Nicola wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Ellen wrote: "I'd be on board with Kristin's independent-mindedness or a passionate nature that makes her throw caution to the wind if we saw it elsewhere in her cha..."

She's young. Teenagers are notoriously selfish and headless but they do change.

Dianne wrote: "Tracey wrote: "The 14th century in Europe was full of hardship and two great natural disasters: the little ice age and the black plague. As such people became more religious and dwelt more on sin a..."

From a time-line I found Kristin married Erlend in 1316.
There was a general cooling between 1140 and 1460.
In 1300 warm summers stopped being dependable and a great famine was 1315-1317. Crop practices throughout Europe where altered to adapt to shorter growing season.
The Black Death was later and I believe Undset uses this in a later novel so this is a head's up: 1346-53 it spread across Europe and it is estimated that it killed 50 million people or 60% of the population. People were weakened by hunger because of poor crops and the black death was able to wreck havoc.

Time line for the book is found at this site at the bottom of the page: but may not want to look as it may spoil future reading.
http://faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/p...