The main thing I am always struck by when I read KL is Undset's amazing insight into love--love of parent for child, love of husband for wife, love of lovers (and their passion) for one another (and how fleeting that love is), love of man (and woman)for God, love of God for man (in the interpretation of the church). And how that love can change (except for God's) and cause such pain. The novel for me is about love, and trying to keep promises that are made in good faith, but cannot be kept because of human weakness.

I have never disliked Erlend, but I have always thought of him as a weak, feckless man. I believe he loved Kristin until his death (as did Simon), but unlike Simon, he could not remain true nor could he give her what she needed. And Simon, true to Kristin, though noble enough to never let her know, could not be true in his heart to his own wife, Kristin's sister, who had loved Simon since she was a child, nor could he give her what she needed. Of all the couples, only Lavrans and Ragnfrid, at the end of their lives, found a deep and rich love.

It's true...this is really a woman's novel in many ways (though I believe the historical context would be fascinating to both men and women) because it is centered around love. It's hard for me to believe that Kristin's story isn't that of the authoress because she provides such deep insight. I always think of Kristin as an historical figure rather than a character in a novel!

I disliked Erlend at first, until I got deeper into the novel. He was certainly weak and feckless, but I believe much of this came from his terrible upbringing. I have a close relative like Erlend in many ways. People like that need constant praise, excitement, new friends, and find it hard to stick to one thing. Kristin was not always wise in her manner of dealing with him (as her father saw) and caused many of the disputes between them by her pride. However, I believe she was naturally attracted to a weaker man because she herself was so strong. This always seems to happen in real life - the one with everything on the ball marries a ne'er do well. As for Lavrans and Ragnfrid, I believe their happiness resulted in loving eachother for God's sake and overcoming selfishness. Kristin and Erlend married out of passion rather than trying to please her parents (and thus God) and their selfishness shows throughout their marriage.

Was anyone else who read this as moved and as touched as I was by the loving, protective relationship Kristin had with her father? That aspect has really stayed with me and is a part of the many timeless manifestations of the differing themes of love in this novel.

I was thrilled to discover this discussion was recently reopened. I'm 56, the daughter of first generation Norwegians (maternal and paternal grandparents immigrated to U.S. in early 1900s), and am a first time reader of KL. (I plan to read it again within the next 12-18 months, this time to savor the story as I read it.)

I devoured the book in three weeks and was not ready to let the characters go. I wanted to find people to discuss it with. Googling KL brought me to this discussion group. I read every entry in the first discussion and was saddened to see it occurred in 2007. But then I saw the May 2009 post and my heart soared.

Interestingly, the book was recommended to me by a man whose book club read it. He loved the book but virtually everyone else did not. The chief complaint from those who did not like it was that it was difficult to read. They eventually ended up comparing a few sections and concluded that the translation was probably a major factor in their dislike of the book.

This novel opened my eyes to the role Catholicism played in the daily lives of people living in Christian countries in the 14th century. (I followed KL with "The Other Boleyn Girl" and found the same to be true in 14th century England.) With their limited knowledge of how the world works (be it genetics, health, or environmental phenomena), it's understandable they would attribute less than perfect results to sin. Questioning that belief system and/or operating outside it resulted in excommunication, banishment, being branded a witch or heretic, so there was no alternate, accepted belief system one could hold and remain in community. I was saddened, dismayed, and sometimes angered at how fear was used to control behavior. At the same time, I admired the faith of Lavrans, which seemed more spiritually pure and consistent with the one central commandment of Judaism and Christianity: love your neighbor as yourself. He did not practice it to be admired by others. He lived the creed, and I think Simon had a similar heart. The religious sensibility of others seemed driven by fear, superstition, the need to control and/or showmanship. The reference to Lavrans' practice of self-flagellation brought visions of Mel Gibson to my head, yet its mention gave me more insight into Lavrans spirituality.

I could go on about many other topics, but I'll stop here. I'd love to hear other thoughts and reactions to the religious aspect of the book.

I'm glad someone else has joined the discussion of my FAVORITE book! I've read the whole trilogy through about three times and I love it more each time. It's amazing, however, that two people can read the same book and experience such entirely different reactions! I actually enjoyed the original translation because it made me feel I was reading an actual historical account. The old language just added to the ambiance (and and my vocab!).

I was actually impressed with the great unity of government and Church which resulted in a greater unity of the people. Everything seemed so well ordered and people knew what was expected of them. Albeit, there were misuses of the system by unscrupulous individuals (selfish priests etc.) but the system as a whole seemed wonderful to me in regards to the way everyone was cared for. For instance, one of the notes at the birth of Naakve about how women were expected to attend at their neighbor's births impressed me greatly. Having many social workers in my own family, it is easy to see the cracks in a government organized system. Truly, people did not have a deep understanding of the modern sciences and many remnants of the pagan superstitions were deeeply ingrained, but I don't think they were all that different from people of today...and that is Undset's genius showing in making a time and people so distant from our own come to life!

I agree, Lavrans was a saintly man. His penances would seem extreme to a modern man, but those were harsh times and the perfunctory sacrifices modern Christians impose on themselves pale in comparison. The middle ages was a time when people experienced constant hardship and their penances reflected that.

Keep up this interesting discussion!

I read it twice and am certain I will re-read at one point. I also read the older version and it certainly introduced me to new vocabulary. I think it's amazing that this classic was neglected for so many decades before it was re-discovered and re-printed.

I was fascinated by Kristin's world, but then I've always loved the Middle Ages. As I was reading the novel, I think I actually fell a little bit in love with Lavrans. How rare must it have been in those days for a daughter to have such a loving, caring, protective father....

Another thing I found interesting was the strenth of Kristin in her older years, when she set off alone on her pilgrimage. I wondered at her courage, in a time when rape and robbery would have been common threats to an unescorted female.

For those of you who liked the strong characters in this classic, I recommend another little-known classical work: "Giants in the Earth" by O.E. Rolvaag. This is the story of Norwegian emmigrants on the American plains and the hardships and adventures they endured. Similar in spirit, in my opinion, to KL.

I was just thinking how unique this book is in the way it portrays the middle ages from the view of the common man. Novels were virtually unheard of at that time and it seems most of the later written books present an overly romantic (e.g. Sir Walter Scott) or overly primitive view of the people of that day. This trilogy seems to point out the hardships and scientific ignorance of that period as well as the good things like the greater freedom of women (as compared to more primitive previous cultures) and the well organized government/Church/social system.

I think it is, indeed, a unique point of view. I read a little about Undset, the author, and learned that she spent years researching the Middle Ages, folklore, culture, etc. She even dressed in the Medieval manner and emulated that style in her life.

As an aside, some years ago, I traveled extensively in Scandinavia and found the culture and folkways fascinating, as well as the people.

And the follow up.

rosefolly, thank you!

I've taught the trilogy a number of times to graduate literature majors in a Catholic studies program. Examining it from a religious point of view--ie. the various responses of the characters to love, sin, guilt, forgiveness, etc.--brings out the remarkable depth of the story. Undset once stated that the medieval period, in which she immersed herself through solid research, was really no different than today in terms of human emotions and ambitions. All great dramas of the soul are timeless, in a way.

Lavrans is a wonderful character, but I also have great sympathy for Simon. He does everything "right" but life goes somehow wrong for him; so true to so many lives! In fact although the book is so great as a woman's story, I also like to view it as a very interesting expression of manhood in portraying the complex relationships between Lavrans, Simon, Erland.