Talk:Kraken

King Sverre

Is it true that King Sverre first mentioned the Kraken in 1180 warning his men about a huge tentacled monster?24.50.188.12 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Supposedly he did but I don't know what the source is. Was it a letter? A book? Can't find any real details about where the information originated from.Wikieditor9117 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the book Sea Monsters Unmasked written in 1884 by Henry Lee, he did. Here's a link. https://archive.org/details/seamonstersunmas00leehuoft/page/n11/mode/2upWikieditor9117 (talk)

Sauce seems to be Konungs skuggsjá: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/61264/61264-h/61264-h.htm#f49 which meantions a "kraken", a giant "fish" (sea creature) which lacks a definitive description. However i have not been able to find a scan of the original text.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Quote: There is a fish not yet mentioned which it is scarcely advisable to speak about on account of its size, which to most men will seem incredible. There are, moreover, but very few who can tell anything definite about it, inasmuch as it is rarely seen by men; for it almost never approaches the shore or appears where fishermen can see it, and I doubt that this sort of fish is very plentiful in the sea. In our language it is usually called the “kraken.” I can say nothing definite as to its length in ells, for on those occasions when men have seen it, it has appeared more like an island than a fish. Nor have I heard that one has ever been caught or found dead. It seems likely that there are but two in all the ocean and that these beget no offspring, for I believe it is always the same ones that appear. Nor would it be well for other fishes if they were as numerous as the other whales, seeing that they are so immense and need so much food. It is said, that when these fishes want something to eat, they are in the habit of giving forth a violent belch, which brings up so much food that all sorts of fish in the neighborhood, both large and small, will rush up in the hope of getting nourishment and good fare. Meanwhile the monster keeps it mouth open, and inasmuch as its opening is about as wide as a sound or fjord, the fishes cannot help crowding in in great numbers. But as soon as its mouth and belly are full, the monster closes its mouth and thus catches and shuts in all the fishes that just previously had rushed in eagerly to seek food. Page 125--Blockhaj (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but that's from 1250. Sverre allegedly wrote about the Kraken in 1180. Also the original text that you wrote apparently referred to the creature as the hafgufa. There was a translation done here [[1]]Wikieditor9117 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Otto Latva

@Taketop:, ur recent source by Otto Latva appears very flawed.

Historian Otto Latva, who has studied the historical relationship between humans and giant squid, has pointed out that giant squid did not become widely associated with the myth of the kraken in Western culture until the late 19th century. In his book The Giant Squid in Transatlantic Culture, he suggests that the kraken may not even have originated from an animal sighting. Influenced by Enlightenment ideals and the Linnean classification system, however, natural historians and others interested in the study of nature began to look for an explanation for it among marine animals in the 18th century. Among other species, starfish, whales, crustaceans and shelled marine molluscs were suggested as models for the kraken. It was not until Pierre Denys de Montfort's research on molluscs in the early 19th century that the octopus became established in Western culture as an archetype for the kraken. As the kraken became understood as a giant octopus, it was also easy to start interpreting the large squid as the model for kraken stories. However, it was not until the late 19th century that such interpretations became widespread. As Latva points out, the giant squid is not the archetype of the mythical kraken, but was made into one just over 100 years ago in the late 19th century.

— Latva, Otto (2023-05-11). The Giant Squid in Transatlantic Culture: The Monsterization of Molluscs (1 ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003311775. ISBN 978-1-003-31177-5.

Pontoppidan identified the Kraken as a giant polypus (squid/octopus) already in the 18th century and the 16th c. Carta marina shows a fish with tentacles and spikes from the face, which could easily be based on a flawed description of a squid. The modern western popularity of the Kraken as a giant squid is irrelevant based on earlier sources. Even the etymology indicates a cephalopod. Blockhaj (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Even so, the kraken is a myth and may be based on a single animal spotting more than half a millenia ago which has just lived on, so we can never rule out a giant squid as an archetype.--Blockhaj (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As Latva notes in his book, Pontoppidan described Kraken as a kind of polyp, and actually mentioned that it was a creature resembling a starfish. It should be borne in mind that in the 18th century a polyp was a general term for all kinds of sea creatures with tentacles (in addition to cephalopods and echinoderms, for instance, hydra, jellyfishes, and sea anemones), and therefore did not explicitly refer to cephalopods. The Carta Marina fish with spikes growing next to its head can also be interpreted in several ways. The search for models for these creatures described by Olaus Magnus in the Carta Marina has been going on since the 19th century, and it was easy for the scientists of the time and the cryptozoologists who continued their work to define them as cephalopods, since these marine animals were understood from the 19th century as one of the basic types of sea monster. In the end, however, we can only speculate on what Olaus Magnus eventually described in his Carta Marina. In his book, Latva does not even attempt to explain what species of animal or natural phenomenon the mythical Kraken is actually based on. Instead, he shows that the perception, especially in the 20th century and even today, that the giant squid is the archetype of the mythical Kraken, and that this connection was made several centuries ago, is false. In his book, he makes it clear that the mythical Kraken was not associated with octopuses until the early 19th century, and with giant squid until the late 19th century. Latva's book is well worth a read. Taketop (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

etymologically meaning in the Kraken article

The phrase "etymologically akin to a squid or octopus" means "per its etymology something akin to a cephalopod". Blockhaj (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"etymologically akin..." and "per its etymology something akin to a cephalopod" do NOT mean the same thing. The first is simply incorrect. But the second one works. I would recommend going with that. Ifnkovhg (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp:--Blockhaj (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Blockhaj: I see what you're wanting to say, and I see that the concept is mentioned at the end of Kraken#Etymology though with the lead-in words "It is thought that"; so that isn't very strong for something trying to be presented in the lead. As a reader, it looked like the concept you were trying to express was that a kraken looked like or was similar to a squid or octopus, which you're saying now is not what you wanted to convey. Per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, you would want the lead to be quite simple and something which explains quickly to an average reader what the subject is. "What is a kraken?" would be a reader's first question. The word's etymology doesn't really belong in the first sentence.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "It is thought that.." is an artifact from a previous segment written by someone else. I never considered it problematic.

My assumption with the word "etymologically" was that it could be used as a single word for "per its etymology", which goes for other Germanic languages, eg German/Swedish. I still believe this word can be used as such per technicality, but if that use is not common then it is not worth using.

The word's etymology imo does belong in the first sentence if the monster has no surefire form (pop-culture not accounted for) but might have had such at one point. Blockhaj (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Ifnkovhg, for this winding up on your user talk page. Feel free to move it to Talk:Kraken (where it should have been in the first place) and delete it from your own talk page.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"Kraken (D&D)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kraken (D&D) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 2 § Kraken (D&D) until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)