You definitely have a point there "Rime-elf".
The goal is to pronounce somewhat like it was
when it was written.

However, if you want to learn it as "a living
language", there seems to be no way outside
Icelandic.

>I think there is a point of trying to get the
>pronounciuation as close as to how it would have been
>because why bother learning a 'dead' language anyway
>when an 'expert' can translate works in said language
>for you into English? Why not simply learn modern
>Icelandic if you're not that bothered about being
>authentic? Latin is not pronouced the same as Italian
>and biblical Hebrew was not always pronounced the same
>as colloquial Hebrew so why pronounce Old norse as if
>it were Icelandic?

I agree with you that learning Latin does not
imply that one pronounce it "con Italiano".
But if you want to learn it as a living language,
you need to live in the Vatican State for a couple
of years, because that is the only place in the world
where it is still used for conversational purposes,
(or so I've heard) But Vatican pronounciation is
likely to be very Italian. And so you'd probably
end up studying Italian in paralell.

Keth