I'm not gonna debate about what Ms. Guerber

( by the way, "he" is a "she;" though if you really wish to argue otherwise, let me provide you with a ready-made ill-informed secondary source,
"H. A. Guerber has written a very interesting volume on the lives of those three unfortunate women-the Empresses of France. That country, probably moreso than any other, has proved the truth of Shakespeare's words, " Unhappy lies the head that wears the crown," for history conjures up a long line of her unfortunate Queens. The lives of Josephine, Marie Louise, and Eugenie, however, are too familiar to readers to require repetition; still Mr. Guerber ⚠️ ↗ has contrived to give to his book a degree of personal interest that robs it of any tendency toward dryness. [ emphasis mine.] )

thinks of the Eddas. All I need point out is that her intrusion of the notion that Thor treated Thralls as equals cannot be found in the verses she quotes from Chapter 8 of the Younger Edda to illustrate the point. But why even bother with her when you can read the original and see that your source is wrong? Why do you prefer not to read Norse mythology as your source for Norse mythology. This is most perplexing?

Her disrepute ⚠️ ↗ is known to Pagan scholars; the kind who prefer the Norse to their misinformed interpreters.

Few are aware that this explanation of the relationship between these two gods has not been traced back earlier than H.A. Guerber, Myths of the Norsemen (1895), a notoriously inaccurate source from the early years of Scandinavian and Germanic studies, when facts, theories and creative ideas were often presented equally. Until then, the kennings for Loki of Býleists bróðir and Helblinda bróðir were taken at face value, with both Býleist and Helblind considered heiti (alternate names) of Óðinn.

While hardly peer-reviewed, at least that author sources the originals and reveals Ms. Guerber's penchant for invention over accurate representation.

But again, why read someone else when the sources are available. Why argue Snorri as misunderstood by Guerber and Aswynn, when you can read the real stuff?

It is not an Atheistic bias to claim that knowledge imbued through magik lacks a standing among historians. In fact, any scholar who cited gnosis in their CV, would be questioned. Or am I supposed to refute you by finding "scholars" who speak in tongues and "know" because "knowledge" was planted in them by the Holy Spirit.

Peer-review and primary-source scholarship are how popular misconceptions and bad scholarship eventually get weeded out. As magikal sources are non-falsifiable, anyone who cites such sources as "God told me" is not engaging in scholarship. The bias to privilege such information is purely religious and subject to different standards on a faith by faith basis; hardly something which can be counted on.

See Mjolnir where you wish, and interpret it as you wish. But don't expect others to give up on interpretations derived from primary sources.

And if you haven't already, I recommend that you add some translations of the originals to your library so you can better evaluate the claims of latter-day "interpreters."

Dante