First impressions I think, can say a lot. Even more so because there isn't always a lot to go on other than that and a little poem that has almost certainly lost something in time and translation, unless you're relying on other people's interpretations.
Guys (Gals); I think we're already starting to drift some from the goal of the forum. I probably should've been more clear in the FAQ.
I don't begrudge anyone their own personal take on the runes, but the direction and spirit I intended for the forum was to avoid any new age sort of fluff while maintaining a focus on study and direct interpretation of the historical and scholarly sources for the runes, in accordance with their tradition and historical culture. The philosophy was for each individual to be able to go directly to the sources and interpret them for themselves as best as possible, rather than rely on a Llewellyn published "middle man" who often introduces aspects of his or her own belief system (and passes this off as "traditional". Letting the runes speak directly to you is one way to avoid this.
Being dismissive of the "little poems" however, is not a good way to kick the forum off.
I think I understand the source of confusion perhaps.
Bear in mind that
translation of the original language is not the same thing as interpretation, though they are cousins.
A translator makes an honest best effort to preserve the original meaning and spirit of the foreign texts without introducing personal views; many modern rune authors, however, have gratuitously added their own belief systems into their book interpretations and thus inaccurately altered the original meanings.
It is the latter, and not the former, that I want to guard against.
Granted, the poems are quite ancient, but centuries old copies of even more ancient texts still exist written in the original native tongue; (for that matter, the language of Icelandic has changed very little in the past 1,500 years or so).
Additionally, the rune poems made heavy use of alliteration (in their native tongue), which, as a mnemonic, is a powerful aid in the preservation of the wording.
There is also a plethora of old Anglo Saxon, Norse, and Icelandic manuscripts, sagas, and eddas, all well preserved throughout the centuries, for which the only questionable aspect of their historically preserved integrity is probably the influx of Christian influences, which may have caused minor alteration in some words. ("God" substituted for Odin or Wotan, for example).
To get to the point, the old sources are reliable; it's just that they're a bit esoteric because they're of a different age and a different culture.
That's the fun, mystery, and challenge of exploring the runes; to go directly to the old poems, the Havalmal, the Völuspá, the Grímnismál, etc.. and see how they - and the ancient authors who wrote them- speak to you.
It's fine to also meditate on the shape or even the sounds of the runes; don't get me wrong, but I believe the ancient texts should be the primary, and not secondary, authority.
(If you wish to primarily go on intuition based on shape and sound, it'd probably be even more potent for you to create and identify with your own custom symbols.)
One other aside: we don't really necessarily know what the sound of each rune was. Many of the runes may not sound as they initially look, partly due to the great vowel shift of the middle ages, among other things.
Also, of course, each rune has multiple names, depending on the culture. (I need to work on putting them here)
If it helps though, this is, to date, the best rune pronunciation guide I've found for the reconstructed Old Germanic language for which the Elder Futhark is named.
http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/pronunciation.html Pretty cool.
