Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Vinland Saga 1 x 19 (Patreon)

Published:
2025-11-29 18:33:01
Edited:
2026-04-20 06:25:54
Imported:
2026-09
Tags:

Videos

  • 572615198.mp4

Downloads

Files

Comments

Erjon Sejdijaj

Loved the discussion at the start of the episode! I basically have no notes, on neither the point of discrimination nor healthy masculinity. Small correction I can't help but make though, is that it was Ragnar who said "spare them, they're Christians," not the priest. The priest was the one who yelled at the start of the invasion for everyone to get the hell outta there. Anyway, an interesting motif in the story that tends to get lost in translation is the phrase "somewhere not here." Because each episode is translated by someone else, the phrasing tends to differ, but in Japanese it's always the exact same, even to the detriment of the overall syntax. It was even the name of the first episode. Thors said he'd go "somewhere not here," obviously relating to Iceland, but the theme goes a lot deeper. The slave girl in ep 8 asked thorfinn what's at the other side of the ocean, to which Thorfinn replied with Vinland. There's more examples, and even more in the manga all the way through to the end, but it's in interesting one to look out for. The idea that there is always a better place to run, always a better place to be. The way Thors tried to run away from his past by going "somewhere not here," with hopes of founding a better life. It's a big throughline throughout the entire story. I also loved Askeladd's grand and hearty laugh after the whole deal with Thorkell. Despite how many things worked against him, how his luck ran out to the point of losing all his men, somehow, through some divine prank everything still somehow worked in his favor. After all that stress has been bottling up ever since episode 10, who can blame the guy for releasing it? Last thing I wanted to mention regarding the whole discrimination theme (if you're not interested in comments by the author, you can just skip these paragraphs), Yukimura himself actually goes both ways on this it seems. If you read the manga, his author's notes often remark on how much respect he has for mothers, and that "if I were to be reborn, I'd want to get reborn as a mother." He sees this motherly love as one of the strongest and most powerful emotions out there, yet at the same time preaches non-discrimination to the point of even thinking dreams are a bad thing - or at least not the noble thing most would make them out to be. He essentially says that dreams are inherently selfish: I want XYZ, regardless of what anyone else says or thinks. We can say that the dream to be a doctor for example is noble, but Yukimura says that person just got lucky. Nobody chooses their own dreams. Some people just had the luck that their dream happens to align with what is good for society. After all, some people dream to commit great terrorist attacks; yet what is the difference in their motivation actually? Both do the things they do because of their selfish wants. Yukimura himself is always apologetic when he brings this up, as he's acutely aware he himself, as a mangaka, brings little of anything of value to society (in his eyes), so if he does proceed to make a manga, the least he can do is make it as perfect as it can possibly be.

Ethan Tarr

Great analysis as always. You're going to absolutely adore season 2.

icyfire

We can finally call him Uncle Thorkell! Also Askeladd's laugh is so contagious.

Mickael Landry

Great reaction Sophie as always, thank you👏 Askeladd's straightforward comments about Ragnar's death show who he really is and clear up any unspoken issues and betrayal between him and Canute. His wild laughter highlights the huge risks he took—his own life, Bjorn's, the prosperity of Wales, and the hopes of his ancestors were all on the line. Against all odds, he succeeded, dodging death and achieving the best possible outcome, an unexpected win that would make anyone in his shoes laugh. 🤣 During the battle with his men, Askeladd's remark about being "tired of waiting" for his "King" reflects hence his joy and the importance of the moment, marking a daring move towards a united front without any disagreements. This moment connects with his mother’s desire for him to be the sword and staff of King Artorius. By offering his sword to Canute and promising his life if needed, Askeladd shows his dedication to a bigger purpose. Even though he doesn't know the details of Canute's talk with the priest, Askeladd instinctively understands Canute’s true character and the kind of king he is meant to be. This understanding motivates Askeladd to swear his loyalty, seeing the potential for a transformative leader that matches his own goals. Yukimura is truly a skilled writer who can turn a reckless action into the smartest and most logical choice a character could make, rather than depending on the expected result.

Mickael Landry

Thorkell and Askeladd each approach and test Canute in unique ways. As you said, Thorkell sees indeed a reflection of Thors in Canute, as both have attained the status of a "True Warrior." Canute embodies Thors' ideals in his quest for an ideal world, and neither seeks to wield a sword for violence. Their similarities extend beyond ideology; both possess a wisdom and clarity of vision that signifies a deep understanding of their identities and purposes, demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice for their beliefs. Thorkell's regret for not following Thors now offers him a second chance to align with Canute, who embodies Thors' ideals despite their differences. Thorkell's decision to join Canute may not surprise those familiar with the history of this era, as he was a known follower of Knut the Great. Additionally, Canute's reference to "father" serves a dual purpose, paralleling God’s expected love with the complexities of his relationship with King Sweyn. This makes Canute's statement, "My father doesn't love me," more poignant than "My father wants to kill me," highlighting the duality of his feelings. As you have noticed, Vinland Saga is excellent for drawing parallels between characters and embedding metaphors.🎭

Mickael Landry

I share Sophie's perspective and find myself slightly at odds with the Priest. My disagreement isn't absolute; rather, I recognize that Willibald, as a Christian Priest, is emphasizing a specific form of love—likely the highest form of love. "Discrimination" is an inherent part of our identity. As humans, we cannot treat everyone equally; we are designed to form attachments and cultivate unique relationships that bring fulfillment. A life devoid of "discrimination" would be an empty existence. In Christian theology, love is categorized into four distinct types, each reflecting different aspects of our humanity and our transcendent selves. These are Eros (passionate love), Storge (familial love), Philia (the love of friends and comrades), and Agape—the highest form of love that transcends our earthly existence. Agape represents the unconditional love of God, a love that is beyond our reach but one we are called to strive for. While theologians acknowledge the importance of the first three types of love in human life, they distinguish them from Agape. This unconditional love is the hardest to embody, as it lies furthest from our material nature. Lacking a natural instinct for it, we rely on our conscience to form a vague understanding of this ultimate, indiscriminate love. Yet, the pursuit of Agape is worthwhile, as it leads us closer to a life filled with meaning, peace, and true camaraderie—not only with our fellow beings but also with our own souls. The instinct for such indiscriminate love is what we lost when our ancestors, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God, trading their natural affinity for Agape for earthly wisdom. Wisdom, in this context, is the ability to compartmentalize and assign varying levels of value to people, events, and experiences. In this sense, death serves not merely as a metaphor for love but as a profound reminder that only in death do we often find true selflessness. This love is epitomized by Thors, who selflessly sacrificed himself to save Thorfinn, his comrades, and his village, as well as Askeladd and his men—whom he refused to kill. Thors exemplified what is described as "pure love" in his pursuit of being a "true warrior." However, he acknowledged that he had not yet fully mastered this ideal, particularly when he drew his sword against Askeladd, indicating that his journey toward becoming a true warrior was still ongoing.

Erjon Sejdijaj

I agree that discrimination is an inherent part of our societal identity, it's even the reason culture as we know it exists in the first place. Patriotism, national pride, all these things I personally see as antithetical to a peaceful world, and all are for sure the result of discrimination. Yet I disagree that a life bereft of discrimination makes for an empty existence. In fact, in the very bible you cite, Jesus is essentially a Thors-like figure who demonstrated how to live a discrimination-less life. Times have changed, and the world isn't as it was back then, sure. Jesus's life was one of hardship, as has been described in detail in the bible. Yet, to call his existence empty (at least, insofar as he is in the bible) I feel is doing a disservice. Jesus got his sense of achievement in life through helping others to his own detriment, and in so doing managed to live a life of fulfillment, in some ways more than anyone else could ever have. I agree that a life of complete non-discrimination is essentially impossible in today's society, yet I still believe it to be the highest form of existence one can have. Whatever people say is the "nature of humanity," at the end of the day is nothing more than a reflection of the time it's being said in. The "nature of humanity" 10000 years ago will have been much different to how we view it today; granted with somewhat of a through line. People will always be people, but what it means to be a people has always been different. I also wanted to comment on what you said about Adam and Eve. Now I should preface this by saying that I'm not religious in the slightest, much less christian. However, I have read the relevant passages here myself. What I find interesting about the story of the fruit is how the serpent was right on all accounts. God that if they ate of it, they'd die - a brazen lie. The only possible explanation is that mankind became mortal; ie they gained the ability to die. But that is not how it is written. The NASB version says " [...] on the day you eat from [the fruit], you will certainly die." What does this mean? Why couldn't God be honest to his own creation? Sure, it was a test, but to test them, He could still have been honest, surely? It seems, in the bible, these early ancestors had a natural curiosity that God needed to stifle in order to maintain the facade. God knew (probably, otherwise even less of the bible makes sense) that the truth of the apple would have been a temptation grander than his own commands, and only death itself could be a bigger motivator. What this tells us, essentially, is that the christian concept of agape can only exist in the absence of curiosity, or the will to grow. Furthermore, God demands of his creation to heed his word over anything and everything. His word is absolute, and nothing else is more important. In this state of facade, of heavenly illusion, all of God's denizens must cede to the absolute. That's the only way for this kingdom to remain. So in essence, Christian agape demands of us to be stagnant, and paradoxically enough, discriminatory in favor of God. None of this, I believe, is what a true warrior should be. A true warrior should strive to always be the best version of himself, and to always remain curious enough to find a better avenue to walk down. To be selfless shouldn't necessitate throwing away one's own will; is it even being selfless if there is no self to worry about? The fruit of good and evil taught mankind of its own existence. I believe, without that fruit, people won't have been able to become good in the first place.

Mickael Landry

Your thoughts Erjon on the story of Adam and Eve 👫 bring up interesting questions about truth, obedience, curiosity, and what it means to be human. 🤔 🍎🐍 You mention that the serpent's claim—that eating the fruit wouldn't lead to death—was actually true, which is different from what God warned. This shows a complex part of the story: how we understand the meaning of "death" in that context.📖👀💭 In some religious views, God's warning could be seen as a prediction of spiritual death or being cut off from God ✋️🚷, instead of just physical death right away.😵 On the other hand, it might mean that the results of disobedience weren't clear or immediate, which makes us think about how God communicates and how humans interpret that.

Mickael Landry

You propose that God's truthfulness could have been preserved, suggesting that the story might illustrate a test of obedience instead of trickery. This brings up questions then about divine honesty and the aim of the test: was it meant to evaluate obedience, impart a lesson, or encourage growth through experience and understanding❓️🤷‍♂️ Your thought that divine love (agape) might require stagnation is indeed a philosophical viewpoint. 🙂‍↕️👍 Some theologians, however, contend that divine love encompasses growth—both for the divine and for humans—and that commandments are meant to direct that growth rather than hinder it. Others see the narrative in a different light, interpreting obedience not as stagnation but as trust or surrender. 🫴 Your claim that the fruit made humanity aware of its own existence aligns with interpretations that see the story as the beginning of self-awareness, moral consciousness, and free will. Without the knowledge of good and evil 🎭, perhaps humanity would indeed lack the ability to make moral choices and develop personally. ⚖️

Brunch

Cant wait until you finally get to season 2 😅

Adam

No one ever hits thorkell in the jaw, hes so tall 😭 im assuming thats why its his weak point, very funny